quote:Gay advocates fight churches' charity status Institutions fear losing tax breaks if they oppose same-sex unions; Rightly so, gay-rights group says
Alex Hutchinson The Ottawa Citizen
Sunday, June 12, 2005
Churches that oppose same-sex marriage legislation have good reason to fear for their charitable status, a leading gay-rights advocate is warning.
"If you are at the public trough, if you are collecting taxpayers' money, you should be following taxpayers' laws. And that means adhering to the Charter," says Kevin Bourassa, who in 2001 married Joe Varnell in one of Canada's first gay weddings, and is behind www.equalmarriage.ca.
"We have no problem with the Catholic Church or any other faith group promoting bigotry," he said. "We have a problem with the Canadian government funding that bigotry."
Why am I not surprised? Is anyone surprised? All this time we were being scoffed at and denounced as extremists, alarmists and bigots for warning that the gay "marriage" lobby was a barely-veiled, direct attack on churches. Only a few weeks ago, at the pro-marriage rally on Parliament Hill (in Ottawa), the small group of pro-gay activists were vociferously shouting that it had "nothing to do with religion."
Yeah, right.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
That's odd...I am not gay, but I understand their point...
These chruches are fighting their right, as it stands now, to marry.....and recieveing public funds at the same time?
Sounds like they might have a point, don't you think? Why is it OK for the Church to attack their rights, but if they in return fight the Church they are persecuting that Church?
Kwea
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I can't tell if they are receiving public funds or are simply a tax deductible donee.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
I was not aware of any churches in Canada that received government funding. To my knowledge, they have tax free status as religious organizations as long as they do not make a profit.
Now, for religious organizations to lose their tax free status because they oppose gay marriage - that I have a problem with.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I don't see why churches should be tax free, or tax deductible, at all.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I don't see why they should be taxed.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I agree that if this is all to remove the tax-free status of churches, it's a bad thing.
-Bok
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Are political organizations tax free? (I really don't know. Especially in another country.)
But if Political organizations are taxable in general, and the church ventures into politics then they should lose their tax free status.
Pix
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I don't see why they should be taxed.
Well, why shouldn't they? To the extent that they own land and are businesses, why should they be treated any differently than any other organisation? Of course, a church doesn't usually have much income, or so I assume, but property is usually taxable, right?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Cuz until postWWII, churches were the only permanent social safety net.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ah, yes, that makes sense. Still, since the reasons for the rule are now gone, time for the rule to go.
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
Churches do not recieve tax money. They are exempt from paying taxes on income because most of that income is directed towards charity work (I believe this only applies to income taxes, not property taxes.) They are not the only organizations that do not pay taxes.
The assertion that religious organizations are a thinly-veiled attack on human rights of homosexuals is idiotic at best. Changing the definition of marriage is not a human right. No rights are being denied. To suggest withdrawing charitable organization status from churches who disagree with the politically correct radical left-wing view is a direct attack on freedom of speech and freedom of religion. In effect, if you take away that tax-free status, you are no longer recognizing them as a religious organization.
Also, the debate about gay "marriage" is in no way a partisan political issue, it's a very controversial social issue that spans party lines. Churches are forbidden from using their tax-free status from engaging in partisan politics; but this is not a question of politics, it's a question of values. To reduce it to a simple political question is to show utter contempt for any semblance of reason and honesty.
Of course, that seems to be a very popular trend in Canadian politics.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: Churches do not recieve tax money. They are exempt from paying taxes on income because most of that income is directed towards charity work (I believe this only applies to income taxes, not property taxes.) They are not the only organizations that do not pay taxes.
Not sure about Canada, in the US churches are not subject to much tax. It varies by state. In Georgia churches and other non-profits are exempt from property taxes. Ga. code listing Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I don't see why they should be taxed.
Well, why shouldn't they? To the extent that they own land and are businesses, why should they be treated any differently than any other organisation? Of course, a church doesn't usually have much income, or so I assume, but property is usually taxable, right?
Because a very, VERY large percentage of charity work and humanitarian aid programs are run through religious institutions. Without tax exemption, most of those institutions would not have the money required to operate most of those charities. As the money then goes into the hands of the government, which does not have many specific organizations currently set up to perform charity work or administer humanitarian aid. To say that religions don't have a right to be tax exempt is the exact same thing as saying that no non-religious charities and humanitarian aid groups have that right either. Churches receive NO aid whatsoever from the government aside from Tax Exempt Status. Non-Profit organizations are always eligible to receive grants from the government. This particular scenario is basically one group attempting to use government intervention to influence the beliefs of all religions. Perhaps you should start thinking about the other end of the seperation of church and state. The government has no right whatsoever to influence the beliefs of any religion as long as those religions do not directly attempt to influence the political choices of their members. The one thread a few months back that talked about the congregation that kicked several members out of the church for voting for Kerry is a glaring example of religion influencing political choice. The opposite of this situation is what is happening now, with gay rights activists attempting to force religions to believe a certain way if they want to continue operating without government interference.
Posted by memory_guilded (Member # 8092) on :
quote:Originally posted by dh: To suggest withdrawing charitable organization status from churches who disagree with the politically correct radical left-wing view is a direct attack on freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Although I agree that it is an attack on freedom of religion, I'm curious as to how supporting gay marriages is a radical left-wing view.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
If you'll recall, the church whose pastor excommunicated anyone that voted for Kerry was apparently in danger of losing its tax exemption also. The point being that churches are not political institutions, so if they step outside the role of religious institution, and into the political arena, they aren't functioning within the guidelines that gave them tax exempt status in the first place.
quote: Under current rules, donations to religious groups are tax-privileged as long as the church refrains from partisan political activity.
I don't think this is grounds for removing religious tax exemptions as a whole, but any particular church that crosses certain borders puts itself at risk of being declared a political action group rather than a church.
That could operated on a per church level, as it did with that one particular pastor, but it could also work on a higher level if an entire denomination refuses to obey the law.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I'm against taking away churches' tax exempt status, for the most part, but churches use government all the time to try and influence the political and social process--this is both [url= http://hhttp://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22religious+lobbyists%22&btnG=Search]liberal and conservative[/url] groups. It's extremely silly to claim otherwise.
It's not persecution when the worm turns.
edit: Let me rephrase that, as it is inaccurate. It is persecution, but it is of a type that seems to be part and parcel of politics.
[ June 12, 2005, 08:41 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
*scratches head*
Not sure why that sucker ain't coming out right.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
Take away the space between url and the url maybe?
That said, I don't think that churches should be involved in politics at all. Which means that they shouldn't be able to protest Gay marriage as long as they aren't obligated to perform marriages to homosexuals.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
In Canada, political organizations have the same tax-free status (and those who donate to the political organizations receive the same tax breaks) as religious organizations and those who donate to them.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
How do you decide when a church's stance becomes political?
And who decides it?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think that churches which tell people to vote for specific candidates or not to vote for other specific candidates (or parties) by name could safely be termed politically active.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Well, when you excommunicate the democratic party I think that's pretty obvious.
As to the Gay Marriage thing, I think that's a much grayer area. It would depend on how they opposed it.
I think the Catholic church has refused to perform marriage for divorced people, even though the law allows remarriage, so what's the difference between that and refusing to perform gay marriage?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I thought Bush paved the way for select religious institutions to receive money from the government.
"with gay rights activists attempting to force religions to believe a certain way if they want to continue operating without government interference."
I don't think most gay rights activists are trying to force religions to believe anything in particular. I think they are trying to stop those religions from making their views the law of the land.
I also think that when a religious institution starts using its money and influence to try and change the law, it becomes a PAC, and needs to be treated as such when it comes to tax status. If they want to keep their tax exempt status, let them create their own PAC like other interest groups do and they can fund it according to finance rules. They shouldn't get a bottomless well to spend from, tax exempt, in a playing field with groups who do not share the same luxury.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
"I think the Catholic church has refused to perform marriage for divorced people, even though the law allows remarriage, so what's the difference between that and refusing to perform gay marriage? "
You don't see the Catholic Church setting up a campaign to get the government to outlaw remarrying divorced people do you?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Well, there is a rather large coalition of churches working to remake marriage law such that it is harder to get divorced. I wouldn't be suprised if the Catholic Church was in there somewhere.
If you look through some of the links in my screwed up Google search, you'll see that pretty much every 'major' church in the U.S. uses lobbyists to get laws passed, defeated, etc.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
And just to repeat, I am against churches being taxed. However, I think they shouldn't be taxed for the same reason any non-profit group shouldn't, not based on whether or not a church is 'political'. Let's face it, they are.
Churches should be able to endorse or not endorse whatever candidate they want, just like the Red Cross or UNICEF or any other American person or organization should. To say otherwise is ridiculous, imho.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I despise it when one or two fanatics on either side are taken as proof that the whole side. These guys are mad because their marriages are being denied because it interfers with the religious beliefs of another group of people. When your religion starts effecting my life, it is political. Hence they throw the only card they can think of, the "Tax Exempt Status" card.
Not bright and not productive.
I still don't understand how two men wanting to get married is an attack on your church, any more than two people not of your faith, or of mixed faith, or previously divorced, getting married, is an attack on your church. As long as they don't ask for the ceremony to be done by your ministers, in your church, what is the difference?
My wife was Catholic. When we went to get married, they refused to hold the ceremony outside. They didn't recognize any marriage not done in the church. We married with a minister from a different denomination. To the Catholic church, my wife and I are adulterers despite 16 years of monogomy. Further, neither of us plans to quit commiting those acts of adultery. Yet the Catholic church is not frothing at the mouth demanding that our marriage is immoral or a sin. Nor has our marriage led to an assault on the Catholic church with lawsuits demanding that they recognize our marriage as valid and surrender thier beliefs.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: You don't see the Catholic Church setting up a campaign to get the government to outlaw remarrying divorced people do you?
I simply offered two examples at opposite ends of the spectrum. If the church refuses to perform a marriage, that's different than if a church funds television commercials to affect a vote on a gay marriage law (for a different example).
BTW, I happen to think that churches get an extra sweet deal on the tax exemptions. While churches that operate on a not for profit level may deserve tax exempt status, there are a lot of religious businesses (like televangelists with rolex watches) that are clearly set up for the purpose of lining their own pockets, but they can simply claim tax exempt status because they are "religous organizations." Something's not right there.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Dan,
My wife is still an active member of the Catholic chruch, despite being married by a presbyterian minister and to an atheist. I don't know that she's ever heard any whispers about her adultery.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:To say that religions don't have a right to be tax exempt is the exact same thing as saying that no non-religious charities and humanitarian aid groups have that right either.
An eminently sensible approach. It's time we cleaned up our tax codes; they're so full of exmeptions that they must surely cost more to administer than anyone saves on them.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Do humanitarian aid groups and non religious charities really have legislative agendas though?
I can't remember the last time UNICEF or LAF tried to get the government to change the law about anything. They might have been trying to wring more money out for funding, but there's nothing new there. Sure they have agendas, they want funding for their projects, but they aren't trying to change the law, they aren't trying to influence domestic politics like many religious tax-exempt groups are.
I don't think there should be a blanket order to take back the tax exempt status of every religious group, but I think ones that cross the line should be given a warning or something.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Do humanitarian aid groups and non religious charities really have legislative agendas though?
Well, you've got to ask yourself, if they even can why is it a prerequisite for Churches not to, just to obtain the same tax-exempt status?
Hobbes Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Regardless of right or wrong, this is a just a stupid fight for gay rights activists to be picking. It's not actually important at all in the grand scheme of things, and all they can possibly achieve by doing so is to alienate people.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well it seems silly to make any judgement or rule about what someone CAN do. I could commit murder, but I don't, should I be detained of my freedom ahead of time?
I think it should be just like breaking any law, if you break the rules, you lose the benefits you enjoyed by following the rules.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I'm with Scott- who decides if the church is being "political" or protesting on religious grounds?
Abortion is legal, should a church lose its tax exempt status if it funds anti-abortion groups with some of its donation money?
If homosexual unions are opposed on religious grounds, then why is a church speaking out against it "political?" No one tells churches they can't speak out against abortion, or adultery, or divorced people remarrying, and says that's political. Why is gay marriage treated any differently?
Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
quote:They are exempt from paying taxes on income because most of that income is directed towards charity work (I believe this only applies to income taxes, not property taxes.) They are not the only organizations that do not pay taxes.
I remember reading that churches recieve 75% of the charitable donations that Americans give, but only 3% of what they give is donated to charity and the vast majority of what's actually going to charity goes only to chuch members.
Let me find the references....
Okay, the Barna group reported that in 2003, 3 out of every four dollars donated to charity in the US went to churches.
And the three percent figure came from Newsweek. Here's the reference: “social programs attract an average of less than 3 percent of a congregation’s annual budget” (“Of God and Mammon,” Feb. 12, 2001, page 25)
So, if the rationale for making churches tax exempt is that they are basically charities, it would seem that it wouldn't really hold up more than to make them three or maybe even five percent tax exempt.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
So charity given to members of the church isn't charity? Does that 3-5% "donated to charity" mean only 3-5% was given to ANOTHER charity to administer?
If they define charity as help given to people who are NOT members of the church, no wonder it's such a low percentage. Weird definition, though.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So, if the rationale for making churches tax exempt is that they are basically charities, it would seem that it wouldn't really hold up more than to make them three or maybe even five percent tax exempt.
Only if you don't count spiritual and religious guidance as charity, which seems a specious distinction to make. Most churches I've come across will let anyone in during most services, with some particular exceptions.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
I know my pastor is very careful about what he says from the pulpit out of fear of loosing the tax exempt status. Mostly along the political lines of endorsing a candidate. He’ll certainly mention issues and talk about what side the bible takes on an issue. But for example he had me set up a registration table before elections last year at the church and warned me not to even say anything political while doing it. Very strange. I know of another area church that doesn’t take the tax exempt status so the pastor doesn’t have to worry about losing it so he does what he feels lead to do and even had candidates speak at some services. To put my two cents in, we seem to allow many groups to get the 501c3 non profit status. I don’t understand why it’s only churches who get scrutinized so hard on what they say. Seems to be a double standard on the whole supposed “separation of church and state” issue.
Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
No, the three percent is charity overall, with most of the three percent going to members.
I don't really count spiritual or religious guidance as charity. I don't see why you would. Charity is aid for the poor. I mean, if I run a museum where people can come in and see the paintings with only a donation, that doesn't mean that I'm offering charity. I may not be a for-profit organization, but allowing poor people to look at the paintings just like anyone else isn't precisely my idea of the spirit of charity, even if they're grateful for the opportunity to get in from the outdoors or grateful to expand their horizons by looking at some paintings.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Are you sure? I'd really like to see the source for that number - where Newsweek got it, I mean. Newsweek is not infallible.
It's like that study that showed how "stingy" Southerners really were, because they donated so little to charity. If you don't count churches as charity, of course it gets lower. Talk about selective reporting.
Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
I'll look when I get back from lunch, but at the time I read it originally, I looked for a rebuttal in the editors' section for a couple of months afterward. No one seemed to factually dispute the numbers. However, since most churches do not release their financial numbers, it's hard to be one hundred percent sure where your money is going.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't really count spiritual or religious guidance as charity. I don't see why you would. Charity is aid for the poor.
That's a rather limited definition of the word "charity," and certainly not the one referenced when using the word "charity" while discussing tax policy.
quote:I mean, if I run a museum where people can come in and see the paintings with only a donation, that doesn't mean that I'm offering charity.
So do you propse revoking museums tax-deductible status, then?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Are psychiatrists and other qualified counsellors tax-exempt?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I assume they would be if they did their job entirely free of charge.
Hobbes Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Free clinics are, I think.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
To clarify Hobbes's post a little, the therapist can be paid, but the customer can't be charged (or must be charged below the prevalent rate) for it qualify as a charity. And if the lowered charges were enough to tip the organization into profitability, they'd have to do something charitable with the money to keep the tax exemption.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
"Abortion is legal, should a church lose its tax exempt status if it funds anti-abortion groups with some of its donation money?
If homosexual unions are opposed on religious grounds, then why is a church speaking out against it "political?" No one tells churches they can't speak out against abortion, or adultery, or divorced people remarrying, and says that's political. Why is gay marriage treated any differently?"
According to that logic, every political organization in the country should be tax exempt. After all, they are only trying to support their beliefs. Again, I have no problem with religious institutions speaking out against whatever they want, it's when they use tax exempt dollars to fight a cause against people who don't share that same benefit where I start to have a problem with it. What you're saying there is just because they have a religious conflict with the issue at hand, they are more important than someone with a mere moral argument, and I don't buy that as important enough.
Free speech all the way, but if they want to get involved in the money game, they need to play by the rules any other PAC plays by.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Churches are given a broad exemption much easier to keep up than nonprofit status in exchange for not engaging in certain sorts of activities, at least in the US. I'd presume a church which wished to engage in such activities but still be appropriately tax exempt could set itself up as a traditional nonprofit.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: Only if you don't count spiritual and religious guidance as charity, which seems a specious distinction to make.
You've got to consider perspective here. It's pretty obvious that from KoM and my perspective, viewing religious guidance as charity is explicitly specious.
I'd compare it to a faith healer filing for reimbursement from medicare. (I recognize that comparison is likely seen as insulting. I apologize, but it's the way I see it)
But I don't think that comparison should prevent churches from being tax exempt. Clearly people do get value from being part of a religious community. And to me, the community aspect is something that religions do extremely well. The charity isn't in the religious guidance, but in the community building.
The best religions are those that build community beyond their own denomination, and the worst are those that isolate themselves from the rest of the world, and demonize other religions. Or to come full circle to the topic, to demonize certain political viewpoints.
But of course, we all demonize certain political viewpoints. And in many cases, we agree that they deserve to be demonized... (this is where my post turns to endless rambling comments)
Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
quote:So do you propse revoking museums tax-deductible status, then?
No, but I am saying that museums aren't doing charity work. That doesn't mean that they aren't valuable, but they aren't doing charity work.
Assuming that, if as Boris says, the reason for their tax exempt status is their charity work, then they're not doing a whole lot of that and therefore should not receive the tax exempt status.
If the reason they're tax exempt is another one, it will have to be evaluated separately.
Museums are not doing charity. That means that they shouldn't be tax exempt for the reason of their charity work. Whether they should be tax exempt for another reason is open to debate.
Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
By the way, I found the original article I quoted on Newsweek, but I can't afford the buy the article, or else I would. Maybe in a couple of days.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I believe you that you read it in Newsweek, I just don't believe Newsweek. I would like to see where they got that number.
Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
Perhaps if I could look again, I could tell you. One thing about Newsweek, though, if they're credibly proven wrong, they will admit it. There are lots of people and organizations for whom that isn't the case.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I used to get Newsweek, and they were pretty good on most things, but their articles on religion and abortion were consistently biased and wrong.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
But they won't be proven wrong on this, because they almost certainly cited a study, and their cite was very probably accurate. It's the study that needs to be judged.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*digs through readings of recent class on religion and public policy*
In an article by Thomas Jeavons ("The Vitality and Independence of Religious Organizations"), he cites the following numbers for congregations (meaning those religious organizations which purpose is to provide experiential, primarily religious services, such as church services and the like):
75% of expenses for religious program activities within the congregation, 25% in donations/direct expenditure to others.
He also reports clergy report dividing their time in almost exactly the same way, 73% to "'ministry and religious education'" and 27% to other services.
Non-clergy employees and volunteers, however, spend somewhat over half their time on ministry/religious things and 45% on other services (though this latter does include other services to members, such as day care, that would fall under the 75% of funds).
The estimates he reports are that 43 to 60% of all charitable giving in the US goes to congregations.
Note that donations to, say, relief services would not be counted in that number: relief services are considered religious service organizations, not congregations, and are generally considered separately in analysis.
Congregations provide most of their charitable help to the community not through monetary aid, but through volunteer hours.
Religious service organizations, almost by definition, spend most of their money on service, not ministry/religious activities. Now, sometimes an organization is not easily classifiable, but luckily for analysts, the pressure on organizations appears to be to specialize, so most long established and successful organizations tend to be pretty easy to classify (and tend to behave as suggested by their classification).
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Its not clear who he's citing, here's the "suggested reading" list following the article.
Ammerman, Nancy. Congregation and Community. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1999.
Cnaan, Ram. The Newer Deal: Social Work and Religion in Partnership. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1999.
Dudley, Carl S., and David Roozen. Faith Communities Today. Hartford, Conn.: Hartford Seminary, 2001.
Hodgkinson, Virginia, and Murray Weitzman, eds. From Belief to Commitment: The Community Service Activities and Finances of Religious Congregations in the United States. Washington, D.C.: Independent Sector, 1993.
Jeavons, Thomas H. “Identifying Characteristics of Religious Organizations: An Exploratory Proposal.” In Sacred Companies. Jay Demerath, Ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Wuthnow, Robert. The Restructuring of American Religion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988.
Wuthnow, Robert. After Heaven: Spirituality in America Since the 1950’s. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1998.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
If the churches were receiving gov't funds, their enemies would say so, loudly.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Only if you don't count spiritual and religious guidance as charity, which seems a specious distinction to make. Most churches I've come across will let anyone in during most services, with some particular exceptions.
Glenn already said it quite well, but I'd like to put it a bit more strongly. Claiming church services as charity is a bit like claiming to be doing charity because you let people into your political rally. And I'll be polite and not even mention what particular politician I have in mind, here.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yeah, that was real polite, KoM.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
The sad thing is that for KoM, it actually was. Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Quoting myself:
"But of course, we all demonize certain political viewpoints."
And KoM is particularly good at it.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
As a bookkeeper for a congregation, I'd have to say I don't agree with most of those generalizations, fugu. Though it is a Jewish congregation in Utah, so probably not a rubric for generalizations.
Oh, and on the Newsweek thing, I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong, but that doesn't usually make it all better that I was wrong.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Those're averages over huge varieties of congregations, they're definitely not any sort of authoritative numbers on specific congregations. I would expect individual congregations to be all over the map.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I do not get why what KoM said was impolite.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
A 75/25 split doesn't surprise me. Facilties, support for clergy, support for church institutions, utilities, etc. are quite pricy. And, as fugu mentioned, most churches keep the service organizations separate.
However, churches serve as clearinghouses for making needs known, central collection points for donations, an, again as fugu pointed out, manpower. While the service organizations are separate, most rely heavily on individual congregations in many ways.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I do not get why what KoM said was impolite.
"And I'll be polite and not even mention what particular politician I have in mind, here."
Translation: I'll just imply the incredibly insulting thing I was going to say instead of outright say it, and I'll claim credit for the politeness of doing so.
Since he knows it wouldn't be polite if he named the person he's thinking of, it's very safe to assume it's someone he would consider impolite to name. Even without making the very obvious leap to whom he's thinking of, it's impolite. And making the leap isn't a big stretch.
Dagonee
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
O.K. Well, that's insulting towards a politician, not towards a religious viewpoint, which, given the consequent posts, is what I was thinking about.
I think there are actually obvious parallels between political parties and religious organizations. They are strongly intertwined in most countries, but as to the question KoM raised, aren't political rallies tax free? Further, are political parties taxed? Isn't the key point here not 'charity' but 'for-profit'?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
OK, I'll be more explicit: I think he was comparing religious services to Nazi rallies. That's insulting to the religious viewpoint. Even if he didn't mean Hitler as the politician, it's still providing strong intimations that religious services are conducted so that those leading them can achieve power. Again, insulting to the religious viewpoint, not the politician.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Um, no, Storm, I'm definitely insulting a religion here. Apart from that, you may have a point on the for-profit thing. I don't know what the situation is in the US, but in Norway, political parties are subsidised according to the number of registered members they have. (To start a political party, you need to gather some number of signatures, I think 3000. Could be higher, it's been a while since my civics classes.) Churches, or rather 'religious communities', get the same deal, except that they don't need signatures to start one, you just need to convince someone in the Department of Churches and Education, or whatever they're calling it this year, that you are a serious community and not in it for the money. The Aesirtru got registered the other year, and the humanist organisations get money too. As you can probably guess, I Do Not Approve. I'm sure comrade Bondevik will be sending me a letter one of these days, inviting me to come in and clean things up.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
Actually, thinking about it I've decided that it isn't too hard for a church to avoid a taxable profit. I've always been a little uncomfortable with the millions of invested capital the LDS church carries. Though I have no idea whether it exceeds a 6 month operating reserve that any non-profit should have. I think even credit unions can cary those without being taxed on them.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: OK, I'll be more explicit: I think he was comparing religious services to Nazi rallies. That's insulting to the religious viewpoint. Even if he didn't mean Hitler as the politician, it's still providing strong intimations that religious services are conducted so that those leading them can achieve power. Again, insulting to the religious viewpoint, not the politician.
I didn't consider the whole Hitler thing. In light of his subsequent post, I guess he was definitely trying to be insulting. Ah, well.
As to it being insulting that "religious services are conducted so that those leading them can achieve power", I definitely don't think that's an insulting idea as long as whoever says it makes it clear htat he's not edit: strictly talking about power in some dictatorial sense. I mean, most religions are all about changing people's minds and getting them to follow that religion's dictates, and if that's not trying to get power, then I don't know what is. However, it's the same kind of quest for power that every person who gets up to speak in the public arena seeks, so it's nothing meaningful, really.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I was actually thinking more of filling people's minds with poisonous nonsense, though the grabbing-power angle is a relevant one too.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
If filling people's minds with poisonous nonsense is a bad thing, we'd better shut down the Internet.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
It would be much more effective to shut down churches. The Internet gives you the choice, and there's a lot of good info on it as well.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
And here I thought KoM was referring to president George H. W. Bush.
No need to shut down churches, KoM. There is always the choice to attend. Just remove their tax-exempt status. I do not need to be or appreciate being told that the next step after homosexual marriages is the legalization of drugs, and that is a bad thing. As far as I am concerned, that is worse than supporting Bush, who can only stay for four more years. Immoral policies are indefinitely long. And my immoral policies are your self-evident natural laws, and vice versa, so why not make you pay for speaking publically?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
That is indeed the position I was advocating until comrade Will tried his hand at sarcasm.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
quote:The Internet gives you the choice ...
When was the last time you were dragged into a church, kicking and screaming, against your will?
Posted by alluvion (Member # 7462) on :
Rat,
"When was the last time you were dragged into a church, kicking and screaming, against your will?"
A generally uncommon experience, I would think:
But one that I think registers on the collective memory... maybe not so much "dragged into church kicking and screaming" but (e.g. boiled in oil, crucified, driven from the flock, what-have-you) persecuted in one form or another.
On an immediate personal level and also an "identity=cog-in-the-machine" level, and that adds another level of complexity.
The real mind-**** in western civies comes when that self-identification and community-orientation splats itself upon the grimster capitalist machinery.
*now I'm talking like a poet, so I should shut-up*
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:When was the last time you were dragged into a church, kicking and screaming, against your will?
When was the last time the Internet came knocking at your door, holy text in hand?
(In case the smiley does not make it clear, I am kidding.)
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
"But one that I think registers on the collective memory... maybe not so much "dragged into church kicking and screaming" but (e.g. boiled in oil, crucified, driven from the flock, what-have-you) persecuted in one form or another."
If you want to argue that, it can go all ways, and really, that's a pointless argument.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
The shadow: that part of myself that I deny, suppress, or hide, often by projecting it onto others.
Blaming a group in my experience usually means they remind me of myself and I don't want to notice it. Pretty effective, too. The Crusades and the Inquisition have been over for hundreds of years, and have been massively overshadowed by the secular horrors of the last century, but if Christians are your target, they're worth using again and again. If you don't like Germans, keep saying "Never again!" while ignoring genocides that happen again and again elsewhere in the world. I'm sure we could find a way to blame Easter Islanders or goldfish enthusiasts, if we need to -- after all, passions sure do get raised on the Windows v. Unix debate. But there's usually someone closer to home to represent evil to us, so we need not look inside.
Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
quote:"When was the last time you were dragged into a church, kicking and screaming, against your will?"
I was about seventeen and a half the last time it happened, but I certainly don't want it to happen again.
Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
quote:Crusades and the Inquisition have been over for hundreds of years, and have been massively overshadowed by the secular horrors of the last century,
Which ones are you counting as secular horrors?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
How's about Soviet purges, Dean? How's about Chinese mass-starvation and various atrocities? How's about the Holocaust? If you choose to say that the Holocaust against the Jews was for religious reasons (a reasonable but incorrect-I think-viewpoint), then what about it against the handicapped and disfigured?
I expect someone will be along shortly to tell us that those were religious things, too, even though the people doing them said they were not.
quote:I don't know what the situation is in the US...
Wow! Never would've gotten that idea from your posts, KoM.
Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
I don't know about Chinese mass starvation, but there is some indication that the Soviet Purges were partly because Stalin was made violent by religious upbringing when he was abused by his father and molested by priests.
And as for the Jewish genocide, it was pretty freakin' clearly religious. Despite the death of handicapped people, Jews and homosexuals were killed on a Biblical basis, and this was far more comprehensive than the killing of the handicapped. If you don't believe me, why don't you try reading Constantine's Sword by James Carroll? He is still a Catholic in good standing, but he argues that the Bible made the Shoah more or less inevitable and Catholics need to accept that this has been their legacy in order to make the necessary changes before it's too late.
Not to mention, of course, the mass held for Hitler to speed him out of Purgatory.
Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
Um, Turin, just rereading your post, when did Hitler ever say that killing all the Jews was not a religious thing? As I recall, he said the opposite.... As I recall, his books were about how destroying the Jews was what God wanted and was Germany's holy legacy. And what about the belt buckles that said, "God with us"? And how people (like the current Pope), were let out of the Hitler Youth in order to join the priesthood?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think the genocide against Jews could've happened for social, economic, political, and racial reaons just as easily, given a demagogue like Hitler & Co. and the times being what they were.
The Mass held for Hitler has nothing to do with Hitler himself or his motivations.
Are you suggesting that it was their religion that made Stalin's father violent and his priests sexually abusive? Because, after all, atheistic people don't beat and molest their children or the children of others, right?
Nonsense. The muder-sprees with the biggest body-counts in the twentieth century were committed by people who claimed themselves as atheists.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Hey, dean, you are usurping my position as Official Invoker of Godwin's Law here. Not that I disagree with you. You might want to mention the slightly-more-than-passive role that the Catholic Church took in the Holocaust, not that the secular governments of the day were much better. Incidentally, handicapped are one thing, but how about homosexuals? How secular was that?
And Rakeesh, I gave information on the part of the world that I know something about. How about you do the same?
Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
Well, how often do atheists kill their children? How often do you hear an atheist say, "I killed my kids so they would be with Jesus? I know they're happier now, and we'll be together in the next life?" I never have heard one say anything like that, but I can think of maybe ten or twelve religious American parents who've killed their kids, and probably eight or so of them said that their kids are better off dead with Jesus or whatnot.
How many atheistic organizations are currently paying out billions of dollars for covering up molestation by someone trained and employed by their organization?
Isn't it the Bible that says "Spare the rod and spoil the child"? while much-mocked liberal political correctness mavens say things like, "Hitting kids only teaches them that violence is unacceptable"?
Hmmm....
Actually, the Catholic church has blood on their hands from more than the Jewish Genocide.... Did you know that some Catholic members of the clergy helped burn members of their congregations alive in Rwanda?
The Catholic Church did not say a mass for the victims of Germany's genocide. They said a mass for Hitler.
They accepted (and condoned) the persecution of Jews for hundreds of years before Hitler came on the scene, and made clear to Hitler that they weren't going to condemn him for killing Jews either.
Hitler was always a Catholic in good standing while the Catholic church threatens to excommunicate people for voting a pro-choice agenda. Don't you think that if they really felt that what Hitler did was wrong, they'd have said so at some point?
Perhaps King of Men will enlighten us as to more specifics I may have forgotten or never known.
And, KOM, what's Godwyn's Law?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Hey dean, how about a source on some of your assertions?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:"Hitting kids only teaches them that violence is unacceptable"?
I think you flipped a modifier there...
Godwin's Law states that, in any Internet discussion, somebody will eventually mention Hitler. There exists an unwritten addendum to the law, to the effect that the first to do so loses the discussion. It arose because Hitler would show up in the most trivial of contexts. However, it is also a very good way of shutting people up when they make perfectly justified comparisons to Hitler. I quite accept that the proper reply to "OMG you are teh Hitlar" is "Godwin's Law, ignore the cretin." Pointing out genuine resemblances or sympathy, backed up with sources, between some organisation and the NSDAP is, I feel, a different matter entirely.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Actually, Godwin's law states that eventually any internet discussion will degrade to the point that somebody compares their opponent to Hitler or the Nazis. The idea is that the discussion is over at that point not because of Godwin's Law, but because when you start doing that, all real discussion is pretty much gone and all you have left is name-calling.
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodwin%27s_law]Godwin's Law[/url]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
OK, I like that formulation better than the one I quoted. I have noted that some people will cry Godwin when the Catholic Church is compared to the NSDAP, rather than the person I'm actually arguing with. That's what I object to.
Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
Quoted from another article on the same case, which is no longer accessible:
quote:“Schlosser's husband, John, told an official with Texas' Family and Protective Services that his wife had referenced a Bible scripture the night before the killing and told him she wanted to ‘give her children to God,’ according to an FPS affidavit that led a judge to award the agency temporary custody of the couple's two older children....”
quote:Files said Laney believed that God had told her the world was going to end and "she had to get her house in order," which included killing her children.
"The dilemma she faced is a terrible one for a mother," Files said. "Does she follow what she believes to be God's will, or does she turn her back on God?"
Files said he would present witnesses who would corroborate Laney's love of her children as well as her belief "that the word of God was infallible."
quote:Her attorney says "Bridget thought that what she was doing was right. She thought she was baptizing her children. As a loving mother she thought it was incumbent on her to get the devil out of her children." He's hoping to convince a jury that Bridget was so mentally ill, she simply didn't know right from wrong.
I can find more if you need me to, but I think that the rest of my assertions are common-knowledge.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
How many people that kill their children make absolutely no mention of God?
Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
I had forgotten that Godwyn's Law was called Godwyn's Law.
I'm not saying that anyone who disagrees with me is a Nazi or like a Nazi. Just that churches don't have clean hands even in these modern times, and I'm not sure that they're so beneficial to our society that we ought to give them tax breaks.
Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
Honestly, I've never in a modern news story come across someone who killed their kids and made NO mention at all of god. I have come across maybe one or two in a few true-crime books, but I don't know if that's because the author didn't think to mention those quotes or because they really didn't mention god.
But it seems to me that an atheist no matter how mentally ill is less likely to kill because they don't believe that their child will have another chance in a better place. Also a mentally ill atheist is more likely to attribute voices to mental illness rather than to god, though some atheists may attribute it to aliens instead.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
dean:"Honestly, I've never in a modern news story come across someone who killed their kids and made NO mention at all of god."
Then you have never paid attention. Kids are killed by parents ALL THE TIME, and the stories you cited are about the only ones I have EVER heard of that mention God.
dean:"But it seems to me that an atheist no matter how mentally ill is less likely to kill because they don't believe that their child will have another chance in a better place."
Sure, an atheist may be less likely to kill their children for that reason, but they may be even more likely to kill their children for any number of other reasons, such as jealousy, anger, money, drugs, revenge, etc.
Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
Are you saying that non-religious people are more likely to be jealous, angry, money-hungry, drug-addicted, and vengeful than religious people?
Why don't you cite some parents-kill-kids stories where there is no aspect of the religious yourself then, UU? If I have to come up with citations, you might as well yourself. And please, while your at it, see if you can't find an atheist who said that they killed their kids because of their atheism, okay? I'd be interested to see that.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
The number of people who kill without reference to God is not relevant. The question is, are Christians over-represented among child-killers? (And to be fair, comrade dean's quotes do not prove such a thing.) However, I think it is reasonably clear that nobody has ever killed their children and given "I'm an atheist following the IPU's will" as their excuse.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
I think that to prove your point, you have to show, not that religious people use religious justifications when they do abominable things (I mean DUH), but that religion causes religious people to do abominable things more often than atheists do them.
As far as I know, NAMBLA isn't a religious organization, but it is far more adamant about promoting and defending child molestation than the Catholic Church is even accused of being.
The excuse about Stalin being "made violent" when he was "molested by priests" is a really huge stretch. There is a difference between personal problems leading to an individual's violent outbursts, and institutional genocide involving an entire (atheist) organization of murderers.
Sure, there are enough religious people in the world that any type of horrendous act can eventually be connected to one. I mean, that's easy. Doesn't even begin to prove the idea that religion is the cause of the violence. In the Stalin case, you would need to prove that Catholicism turned some priest into a child molestor, and that the molestation by that priest caused the genocides under Stalin's government. I don't think there is any way to even pretend to do either.
Do you believe that if suddenly, in an instant, everyone abandoned their faiths, violence in the world would be even slightly diminished? I personally doubt it. A LOT.
...
By the way, how do we figure in "inactive" religious people? Folks who belong to a religion in name, but essentially live as atheists? Is their religion responsible for their bad behavior? What if they choose to use their religion as an excuse after the fact? Would you believe them? Why?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Seems to me that, at the very least, you wouldn't get any more suicide bombers.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Were the Kamikaze pilots doing it for the same reasons as the suicide bombers in Israel? I get the impression that the Japanese pilots' willingness to sacrifice their lives was far more about nationalism, pride, culture, and desperation than it was about their emperor's nominal status as a "god".
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Come to think of it, what were Vietnamese suicide bombers doing it for? Weren't there cases of North Vietnamese sympathizers approaching American soldiers in public places and handing them a grenade?
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
dean:"Are you saying that non-religious people are more likely to be jealous, angry, money-hungry, drug-addicted, and vengeful than religious people?"
Of course not. It would be crass and boorish to generalize about about an entire group based on their belief or lack thereof like that.
dean:"Why don't you cite some parents-kill-kids stories where there is no aspect of the religious yourself then, UU?"
Just in the past few months there have been prominent stories about this. There was Jerry Hobbs, who stabbed his daughter and her friend to death because the daughter wouldn't come home when he told her to. There was Precious Doe, whose mother and mother's boyfriend have been charged with murder. She was killed just because she lived with abusive people. This happens a lot, and it has nothing to do with religious belief.
dean:"see if you can't find an atheist who said that they killed their kids because of their atheism, okay?"
Of course such a thing would be ridiculous. But I bet there are lots of people who ended up killing their children whose lives would have turned out very differently if they had religious convictions which taught them to avoid such things.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Kamikaze is japanese for "divine wind."
The concept is based on the nationalistic Shinto religion.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
How smoothly he turns from "Of course atheists don't kill for their beliefs" to "But I bet we could make these misguided souls feel better with our soul-scrubbing." It doesn't occur to you that most murderers are poor, and most poor people (in the US at least) are religious?
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
King:"The number of people who kill without reference to God is not relevant."
I think it is, though not in isolation. I think that if child-killing is relatively common, and yet the numbers of child-killers who mention a religious motivation is small, it matters a lot.
King:"The question is, are Christians over-represented among child-killers?"
That would be an interesting question, but I don't think it's the question at hand. I think the proper question is, "Are people who kill their children because of religious motivations unusually common as opposed to people who kill their children for other reasons?" I think that they are not.
Sometimes people kill because they are nuts. People who are nuts manifest their nuttiness in different ways -- religious people's nuttiness might reasonably be expected to reflect their religious faith, just as non-religious people's nuttiness might reasonably be expected not to reflect religion at all. I don't see that the nut who is religious is more likely to kill than the nut who is not. The religious belief isn't the cause for the behavior, it's the nuttiness.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
King:"It doesn't occur to you that most murderers are poor, and most poor people (in the US at least) are religious?"
Poverty makes people desperate, and desperate people are more likely to kill.
Desperate people might also be more likely to feel the need of spiritual aid (as it is one kind of aid that they actually have access to).
I think that the second response to poverty is more positive, and that if more desperate people turned to religion there would be fewer desperate killers.
Rich people (in the absence of mental/emotional illness)are less likely to feel the kind of desperation that drives one either to violent acts or to spiritual solace.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:...not that the secular governments of the day were much better. Incidentally, handicapped are one thing, but how about homosexuals? How secular was that?
Your first part is my point exactly. Your second part...do you really think it's religion that leads to homophobic bigotry? Religion exclusively?
As for what you know and don't know...you're regularly insulting, misrepresentative, and fanatical concerning religion and atheism. I am not.
-------
quote:Well, how often do atheists kill their children? How often do you hear an atheist say, "I killed my kids so they would be with Jesus? I know they're happier now, and we'll be together in the next life?" I never have heard one say anything like that, but I can think of maybe ten or twelve religious American parents who've killed their kids, and probably eight or so of them said that their kids are better off dead with Jesus or whatnot.
How many atheist people are there as a percentage of the population? How many studies have there been of your claim? How many serial killers weren't religious at all?
quote:Hitler was always a Catholic in good standing while the Catholic church threatens to excommunicate people for voting a pro-choice agenda. Don't you think that if they really felt that what Hitler did was wrong, they'd have said so at some point?
Assuming even one of your claims is true-and I don't-that you take them as an indictment of religion as a whole says much more about you than Catholocism OR religion.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: How many atheist people are there as a percentage of the population?
Depending on how the poll is done, between 2% and 15%. About 2% generally self identify as atheists, but roughly 15% will answer that they generally don't believe in God.
The following letter is often quoted by atheists as indicating that atheists are underrepresented among the prison population in the U.S.
Note, these figures are probably represent self identification, so the 2% is the better number to use to compare with this particular set of figures.
quote: The Federal Bureau of Prisons does have statistics on religious affiliations of inmates. The following are total number of inmates per religion category: Response Number % ---------------------------- -------- Catholic 29267 39.164% Protestant 26162 35.008% Muslim 5435 7.273% American Indian 2408 3.222% Nation 1734 2.320% Rasta 1485 1.987% Jewish 1325 1.773% Church of Christ 1303 1.744% Pentecostal 1093 1.463% Moorish 1066 1.426% Buddhist 882 1.180% Jehovah Witness 665 0.890% Adventist 621 0.831% Orthodox 375 0.502% Mormon 298 0.399% Scientology 190 0.254% Atheist 156 0.209% Hindu 119 0.159% Santeria 117 0.157% Sikh 14 0.019% Bahai 9 0.012% Krishna 7 0.009% ---------------------------- -------- Total Known Responses 74731 100.001% (rounding to 3 digits does this)
Unknown/No Answer 18381 ---------------------------- Total Convicted 93112 80.259% (74731) prisoners' religion is known.
Held in Custody 3856 (not surveyed due to temporary custody) ---------------------------- Total In Prisons 96968
I hope that this information is helpful to you.
Sincerely, Denise Golumbaski Research Analyst Federal Bureau of Prisons
Sorry for the mush, I tried to get the numbers to line up in columns, but it just didn't want to do it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, obviously the religious types aren't True Christians (tm).
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Obviously Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Poor baby, did I point out your logical fallacy before you could use it? Go on, tell me you don't believe those people had real faith when they committed their crime. You know it'll make you feel better.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
When have Christians ever claimed we don't do bad things? We just claim to be forgiven.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Poor baby, did I point out your logical fallacy before you could use it? Go on, tell me you don't believe those people had real faith when they committed their crime. You know it'll make you feel better.
Golly, could you possibly be a more smug, self-impressed jackass, King of Men? You're a walking, talking bloody fanatic. When people say things like, "It's the people on the far-right and far-left that stop things from getting done," they're talking about you, and the funny thing is you're so busy congratulating yourself on how smart you are and how stupid and brainwashed most other people are, you don't even get it.
As for your stupid, insulting, and bigoted remark, no, obviously those people were not truly good examples of their religions when they committed their crimes. Since, y'know, there are Commandments and similar Scriptures prohibiting crime. By definition, those people were not acting in accordance with their faith when they committed their crime.
It's not a fallacy, as much as you would like to smugly implicate otherwise.
---------
As for the statistics you posted, Glenn...they're interesting, but they don't tell a full story in and of themselves. For one thing, they don't tell you what the numbers may have been when the crime was actually committed, not what they are while it is being punished.
A small percentage of crimes are reported, and a small percentage of those are successfully prosecuted. This is a chance for King of Men to very pompously state that atheists are smarter than their idiot religious cousins.
Finally, I believe that prison by its nature might make a person more likely to self-identify as religious or to convert. 'No atheists in foxholes', as the saying goes. I realize these aren't statistical objections, but I stick by them.
[ June 15, 2005, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: Papa Janitor ]
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
What an outpouring of hate this thread has become. Consider, before you add to it, whether that's what you want to give to the world.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I guess I love a nice, tall, frosty glass of hatorade.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I rather strongly suspect there's no scripture prohibiting trafficking in drugs, actually. But apart from that, clearly the atheists aren't particularly poster children for their faith, either. That's not the point. The question is, which faith has more poster children, per unit adherent?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>The question is, which faith has more poster children, per unit adherent?
More significantly, what part did the adherent's faith play in the commission of the crime?
I'm not particularly interested in numbers-- I am interested in seeing the ties between belief systems and action.
EDIT: OOPS. Misunderstood KoM's question. In any case, how're you gonna judge who's a poster boy?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, how about a simple definition of "doesn't go to prison"? Not necessarily a final choice, but a place to start.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Rakeesh, the profanity isn't necessary, and it does nothing to help your argument. Please delete.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
While there's the occasional insult in his post, I see no profanity. What were you objecting to?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>Well, how about a simple definition of "doesn't go to prison"?
I'm afraid that the religious have you beat there, KoM. There are definitely more religious people NOT in prison than there are athiests NOT in prison.
Do you agree?
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
I object to where he uses my creator's title as a form of profanity. And no, it's not a word I'm going to quote.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: Finally, I believe that prison by its nature might make a person more likely to self-identify as religious or to convert. 'No atheists in foxholes', as the saying goes. I realize these aren't statistical objections, but I stick by them.
This is why I specified that you should use the 2% figure rather than some figure closer to the 15%. Those other 13% are the ones who tend to waffle under such situations.
I will also say that the "no atheists in foxholes" quote doesn't come from an atheist, but from a Christian General in WWII (I'd have to look up his name). Atheists find this characterization insulting, as though we could change our belief for some sort of convenience.
At the Godless Americans March On Washington, several hundred atheist veterans and servicemen took the stage to protest that slogan, and the practice of marking dogtags: "No Preference" if a service member replies that they are an atheist when asked for their religion.
There are also more than a few stories of atheists quite literally in a foxhole, who got mad at people cowering in the corner praying, told them to pick up a damn gun and do something productive, like shooting their way out of there.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Glenn,
Of course I don't take that as an absolute. I also don't think the saying implies that atheists would change based on convenience-sudden, gruesome death facing one inches away has a way of creating shock and reactions that otherwise would not happen.
I think prison could have a similar reaction.
----
The issue has been taken out of my hands, quid. I'm sorry you were offended.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
"gruesome death facing one inches away has a way of creating shock and reactions that otherwise would not happen."
I know of quite a few atheists that argue that this kind of situation convinced them that a loving God could not exist.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
Rakeesh, I had assumed that once you saw the comment, you would have changed your wording simply out of consideration for another Hatracker, because this is the type of person I've come to know you to be. I just didn't know when you'd be back around, so I did it for you. If you don't like my choice of interjection, you're free to change it. *smile*
--PJ
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I prefer "Gee willikers!" myself.
Posted by Dr. Evil (Member # 8095) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: [QUOTE] I will also say that the "no atheists in foxholes" quote doesn't come from an atheist, but from a Christian General in WWII (I'd have to look up his name).
Marshall Foche
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I would have inserted "My stars", of course. Seriously - it's fun to say. Try it! If you emphasize the last word, it sounds satisfyingly like swearing.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
And if it's insufficient, there's always "Oh my stars and garters!"
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
LoL, you're more charitable than I deserve there, Pop. I was irritated that you'd edited my post initially, even though in the vast amount of time since then-like four minutes-I realize I was out of line in the initial use on the `Rack of that profanity, and my reaction was unfair. I implied a bit of that reaction in my post.
I guess that's because I apply different rules to that particular blasphemy when I'm especially irritated. Something I need to work on. Sorry, Quid and Pop, minus the irritation this time. My bad.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Rivka's a Beast fan. Who knew?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>I guess that's because I apply different rules to that particular blasphemy when I'm especially irritated.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Rivka's a Beast fan. Who knew?
Not I. A what fan?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The Beast is one of the original X-Men, and "Oh my stars and garters!" is one of his catch phrases.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That's my way of saying that when I get irritated, I tend to use the word that was edited, Scott.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
The bit about atheists in foxholes: To my understanding it can mean two things.
1) If a person says they're an atheist and they face and situation in which they might die or otherwise be mutilated, they will conveniently change their tune, and become religious.
2) An atheist would do anything to avoid putting themselves in a dangerous situation (nobly and for others), therefore, you never find them in a foxhole.
These are (honestly) the only two I can think of. Is there some other meaning it could have that I'm just overlooking, or is it just an insulting statement based on nothing that no one should quote in the future?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: Is there some other meaning it could have that I'm just overlooking, or is it just an insulting statement based on nothing that no one should quote in the future?
Nope. You don't get to post what you've posted in this thread and then complain about people using that statement, not if you don't want people to fall over in amazement at your audacity.
Glenn can say it with credibility. TomDavidson can say it, despite momentary lapses (of which there haven't been any for a while).
But if you can say atheists are less likely to kill their kids than religious people, you have no moral standing to complain about the "no atheists in foxholes" comment.
Dagonee
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's strange that your understanding includes only those two things, Dean, especially since I gave another explanation entirely. I will repeat it:
Wars are extremely stressful things, and sometimes trauma can be so terrifying and severe that people go into shock due to extreme fright and latch onto anything they can, some hope. This could be something that in normal, rational circumstances is completely outside their normal behavior, and nothing they would soberly choose for themselves.
People reject God and embrace God in war, based on their unique and terrible experiences.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: I know of quite a few atheists that argue that this kind of situation convinced them that a loving God could not exist.
And I'm sure there are people who became atheists because of such an experience. Just as I'm sure there are people who converted while in a foxhole and confirmed that conversion afterwards.
The problem is with the word "no," not with the idea that some atheists might convert under such circumstances.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's in the Book of Mormon, that it can go both ways.
quote:Alma 62:41 But behold, because of the exceedingly great length of the war between the Nephites and the Lamanites many had become hardened, because of the exceedingly great length of the war; and many were softened because of their afflictions, insomuch that they did humble themselves before God, even in the depth of humility.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Thanks Papa and Rakeesh. Yeah, "My stars and garters" would have won the day for me. *wipes tears* That's my favorite suggestions, hands down.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: >>Well, how about a simple definition of "doesn't go to prison"?
I'm afraid that the religious have you beat there, KoM. There are definitely more religious people NOT in prison than there are athiests NOT in prison.
Do you agree?
I did specify "per unit adherent". Obviously you need to take the size of your sample into account; I mean, duh.
quote:gruesome death facing one inches away has a way of creating shock and reactions that otherwise would not happen
So in fact, religion is well suited to people who are mindlessly scared? Well, in fact I agree. I'm reminded of the former drug addict who accosted me on the street one day, saying that Jesus had helped him when he was 'totally blown'. Yep, no surprises there.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The title of the thread should be changed to "People Arguing about Religion Part 10,000"
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Only 10,000?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I've only been at Hatrack for 8 months (only six of which I've actually posted during). 10,000 covers my brief attendance here, if the number is any higher, people who've been here longer will have to modify it.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
But I can't think of many things that are more fun to argue about than religion.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
There's tons of better stuff. Politics for one.
But less obvious choices, which was the best Batman? Michael Keaton of course. Best Batman director? Tim Burton obviously. Almond Joy or Mounds bar? Almond Joy. Green or Yellow? Yellow, it's more flattering to my skin tone.
See, there's plenty of less volatile stuff to argue about that is just as fun.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:But behold, because of the exceedingly great length of the war between the Nephites and the Lamanites many had become hardened, because of the exceedingly great length of the war
It's a bit of a derail, but I hope this isn't comrade Smith's finest moment in prose. In Altariel's thread, I rather harshly criticised the use of 'finally' twice in the same sentence. A whole fragment like "because of the exceedingly great length of the war"? Dear me. At least the King James manages to rise to poetry on occasion, and without having been dictated directly by divine intervention, at that. Maybe God doesn't get enough practice at writing?
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
*ponders deleting thread*
*realizes that this would not result in deletion of King of Men as well*
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Don't be an idiot, KoM. You have moments of lucidity. That is not one of them.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Don't delete the thread, rename it.
Turn it into the "Almond Joy or Mounds bars?" Thread.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Come now, mere literary criticism? Surely you are not defending the literary merit of the piece? It does not seem to me that the repetition accomplishes anything but padding.
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
Why do you care?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Don't be an idiot, still.
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
You're wasting your time even asking.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I don't particularly care, it was just an offhand remark. And katharina, I am really terribly sorry I saw fit to criticise the writing in your favourite fairy tale.
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
See what I mean?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Yeah, but don't delete it anyway.
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
I won't. For now...
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Fake apologies always suck.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:So in fact, religion is well suited to people who are mindlessly scared? Well, in fact I agree. I'm reminded of the former drug addict who accosted me on the street one day, saying that Jesus had helped him when he was 'totally blown'. Yep, no surprises there.
Wow! Yet another stupid, insulting, bigoted misrepresentation. I am positively breathless with the shock of it.
People convert from atheism-in foxholes and otherwise-all the time. But then again, when you're living in the world where everyone but you is stupid, I don't expect you to be surprised by this or even consider it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
What the devil did I say, anyway? I pointed out that this wasn't particularly great writing. Just what is the problem with that? I mean, if you disagree, fine. It's a point on which reasonable men might disagree. But what's with calling me an idiot?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:And katharina, I am really terribly sorry I saw fit to criticise the writing in your favourite fairy tale.
Wow. Fanaticism in action!
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
Everything you say is calculated to offend as much as possible. That's how you get your kicks. You constantly make some of the most bigoted, arrogant remarks I have ever heard and then pretend to be surprised when people react. That makes you an idiot. The saddest part is that it is entirely by your own choice.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Rakeesh, I do not at the moment recall what faith you profess, but tell the truth now. Do the writings of other religions have any more claim to truth than fairy tales?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
No, dh, I do not attempt to offend, I attempt to tell the truth as I see it. If you find that offensive, too bad.
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
If you actually believe what you just said, I may have to retract my comment about it being by choice.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Three attempts to offend, just from this thread:
quote:Maybe God doesn't get enough practice at writing?
I am really terribly sorry I saw fit to criticise the writing in your favourite fairy tale.
Poor baby, did I point out your logical fallacy before you could use it?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Humour, sarcasm, and sarcasm, respectively. If you don't feel sarcasm is a legitimate debating tactic, by all means tell me why. I might even listen.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
"I pointed out that this wasn't particularly great writing"
No, you pointed out that it was particularly BAD writing, and implied that this undermined the belief that God wrote the book.
The fundamental problem, KoM, is that you manage to imply that theists are inherently stupid with virtually every comment.
It's not simply a matter of trying to explain your perspective on a touchy matter, and insulting people by accident.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Rakeesh, I do not at the moment recall what faith you profess, but tell the truth now. Do the writings of other religions have any more claim to truth than fairy tales?
As a matter of fact, I am a Latter-Day Saint, although far from a shining example.
And according to my beliefs, yes, writings of many other religions do have a claim to some portion of truth, because God does not speak only to like-minded people according to Mormons.
----------
Sarcasm is not a legitimate debating tactic when you're constantly misrepresenting. It's legitimate only as a means of insulting-whether between friends who are bantering, which even you must acknowledge we are not-or between rivals who don't like each other.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:If you don't feel sarcasm is a legitimate debating tactic
I feel that debating tactics usually aren't appropriate for a respectful discussion.
Ones that are purposely offensive even less so.
It's not a competition. As I was reminded of today by Slash (becaus of my less-than-stellar behavior on Galactic Cactus), it is not a competition. Nobody gets anything out of scoring points.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:No, you pointed out that it was particularly BAD writing, and implied that this undermined the belief that God wrote the book.
That is undeniably what I believe on the matter. If people find my beliefs offensive, too bad. I am not any too fond of theirs, either.
quote:writings of many other religions do have a claim to some portion of truth
Splendid! You won't object, then, if I sacrifice you to Huitzilopochtli, so he will be able to continue his struggle with the forces of night? Oh, and by Hindu mythology, that should earn you a good amount of karma, too.
quote:I feel that debating tactics usually aren't appropriate for a respectful discussion.
Fair enough; I've never claimed to respect anyone's silly beliefs, only their right to believe silly things.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
KoM -- I'm not talking about respting their beliefs. I'm talking about treating other people with respect.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Splendid! You won't object, then, if I sacrifice you to Huitzilopochtli, so he will be able to continue his struggle with the forces of night? Oh, and by Hindu mythology, that should earn you a good amount of karma, too.
And of course because I said that writings of many other religions had claim to some portion of truth, your typically stupid remarks are an accurate representation of my point. Good job!
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
And do I not have an equal right to consider your particular religion a fairy tale?
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
I hate the idea of locking or deleting threads, so can one and all please refrain from personal attacks? It's entirely possible to discuss the issue and disagree on points without insult. You are better than this.
KoM, I feel bad on your behalf because people seem frequently to gang up on you, but I understand their frustration because it does seem at times (most times, at that) that your words are specifically chosen to offend. Based on the intelligence level you portray, I can't help but think this to be completely intentional.
Again, though this repetition may simply be filler, please refrain from personal attacks.
--PJ
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
When did I say you didn't have an equal right to consider my particular religion a fairy tale? I never said or implied that, and I challenge you to demonstrate anyplace I did.
What I take issue with is your constant implication that people who believe in any religion are stupid, brainwashed chumps. It's not that you believe it that irks, it's that you go out of your way and say so, constantly. Almost every word you say on the subject is either specifically stating it, or implying it so thick you could cut it with a knife.
It's stupid, offensive, childish and irritating when a Christian zealot constantly tells 'non-believers' that they're going to Hell for their unfaith, not necessarily because they think it-though possibly for that as well-but because they say so, constantly. So it is with you.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
King, there is definitely a big difference between saying, "I don't think your beliefs are true, and I don't find your book convincing," and saying, "Sorry I insulted your favorite fairy tale."
The first comment is not at all offensive. It's just the truth. No one can legitimately be offended by that.
But the second comment carries with it connotations that are clearly meant to hurt. Fairy tales are obviously-made-up stories that are told to little children who are expected even at their young age to recognize that they are false. For an adult to believe in a story like Hansel and Gretel or Cinderella would be preposterous.
When you call someone else's beliefs a fairy tale, you are doing more than simply saying you disagree. If you wanted to say that, you'd use different words. You're saying that they have devoted their lives something so preposterous that any sane adult should be ashamed to admit believing in it. That's an insult.
If you want to be treated like a respectful participant in this discussion, you have to learn to act like one.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I called the Book of Mormon a fairy tale; you instantly called me out for a fanatic. Since it appears you cannot come up with an actual argument to demonstrate that it isn't, that smacks to me of shutting me up for what I believe.
For the rest, here are some of your own remarks, just from this page :
Mr Glass House, meet Mr Stone. I hope you'll be good friends.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:You're saying that they have devoted their lives something so preposterous that any sane adult should be ashamed to admit believing in it.
In a word, yes.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You didn't ask for an argument why the Book of Mormon isn't true.
I called you a fanatic long before you called the Book of Mormon a fairy tale.
I only wish I could shut you up.
And unfortunately, my calling you a fanatic does not make me one. Nice try, though. But if you think I'm wrong, by all means, take a poll!
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:Since it appears you cannot come up with an actual argument to demonstrate that it isn't, that smacks to me of shutting me up for what I believe.
I personally don't think people have a responsibility to defend their beliefs just because you happened to decide to challenge them today. "You're rude, and I don't intend to answer you" is always a good enough response for the kinds of insults you were flinging.
I, personally, wouldn't have been too bothered by your first post on the subject, and would simply have set you straight on our beliefs about the provenance of the Book of Mormon, had that been all you said. But you moved SO QUICKLY from straight criticism to intelligenter-than-thou mudslinging that I lost interest in ever attempting to cater to you.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
My glass-house-and-stone comment wasn't intended to portray you as a fanatic, but rather as someone who calls other people stupid.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
Admittedly, KoM has in fact stated almost exactly that, Dog -- and specifically asked if anyone could suggest a more polite way of saying it. However, nobody could provide one as I recall, perhaps indicating that it is inherently impolite.
From a hypothetical standpoint -- if someone did believe Hansel and Gretel to be factually true, would you (generic, not specifically Dog) consider it acceptable to make the same comments that KoM is making, or some variation thereof? Under what conditions and in what situations? Would it be ok to say such things about them if they weren't around?
I remember around election time such sentiments were expressed an awful lot on both sides of the fence. I personally found them rather distasteful and non-constructive, and I tend to refrain from political discussions of nearly every stripe because for some reason the statements seem more acceptable in that arena.
[/ramble]
--Pop
[Edit -- things move too fast for me here sometimes, especially when I'm interrupted by two wonderful children. No, I mean Mooselet and Superstation. *wink*]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: I personally don't think people have a responsibility to defend their beliefs just because you happened to decide to challenge them today. "You're rude, and I don't intend to answer you" is always a good enough response for the kinds of insults you were flinging.
Well, that's fair enough, but it's not what was actually said. If you'll take a look at comrade katharina's post, it says, and I quote, "Don't be an idiot."
quote:I, personally, wouldn't have been too bothered by your first post on the subject, and would simply have set you straight on our beliefs about the provenance of the Book of Mormon, had that been all you said. But you moved SO QUICKLY from straight criticism to intelligenter-than-thou mudslinging that I lost interest in ever attempting to cater to you.
Tell you the truth, I don't see this in my first post, at least; that was a genuine attempt at humour. If, in the "God, you say..." thread, I had posted to the effect that "God only writes a book every five hundred years or so. He's a bit out of practice." would you have objected?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:In a word, yes.
Yes, I know that's what you SAID, and that that's what you THINK. My question is, why did you choose to EXPRESS your opinion in the words you did, rather than in a respectful tone?
I think of all kinds of things to say every day, I believe most of them, but I actually restrain myself when I know that what I'm saying is needlessly offensive, and could just as easily be said in a more mature, productive way. Is it too much for me to ask other people to do likewise?
Your apparent belief that treating other people with contempt is great so long as you believe what you're saying doesn't seem to me to be much more attractive or defensible than the belief system you are attacking.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
As comrade Moose pointed out, it's a bit difficult to say such a thing in a respectful way.
However, this thread is getting a bit out of hand. I'm going to take a break from posting and get some useful work done.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:Tell you the truth, I don't see this in my first post, at least; that was a genuine attempt at humour.
But the humor was rooted in the premise that the repetitive language implied an unskilled writer, and that Mormons are silly to believe that the writer was God. It WAS criticism. Humor was just the method of delivery.
That's an incorrect premise, though. We don't believe that God wrote the book. The book even says directly that its writer is ashamed of the written language and skills at his disposal, and assures the reader that the weaknesses in the book are his own, and not God's.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
I'd appreciate not being referred to as comrade anything, KoM. I can deal with comrade as a noun, but as an adjective it has connotations that I dislike. Thanks.
I gotta admit, Dog (and others), I assumed the original comment that started today's hullabaloo was intended as light humor, though not really that funny. But I think it was people's previous knowledge about what KoM believes and has said in the past that resulted in the offense, rather than the actual comment. I didn't have a particular problem with it, though of course I'm not LDS. But if the same had been said of The Bible, I think I could have written it off as humor that wasn't funny.
To some degree, though, KoM has made his bed and now lies in it. He hasn't cultivated in Hatrack the habit of reading his posts for humorous content, but rather for insult. And it's relatively easy, at least for me, to find insults and take them personally when looking for them in something written by someone in sharp disagreement. *sigh*
--Pop
Posted by Fishtail (Member # 3900) on :
Puppy, we tried in the thread Papa mentioned to convince KoM that he could use tact to convey his positions, but every attempt was met with KoM's conviction that any statements other than his own could not possibly be the truth as he sees it. Softer phrasing was not true enough if it didn't convey his utter contempt for religious belief of any sort and his conviction that all religious belief was ignorance or delusional. He just couldn't understand (be convinced?) that he didn't have to voice every contemptuous thought about religion and those who believe--to feel the need to do so would be, in his mind, censoring him.
I applaud your effort, but I'm sorry to say, it's futile. He wants to insult and offend, he joys in goading...I think it's his attempt to evangelize his athiesm.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
(Note: This is from someone who does not believe the BoM was divinely inspired.)
One criticism I've often heard of religion (most often Christianity, but that's self-selected) is summed up in the question, "Why would God do that?"
In this case, "Why would God use a less than perfect writer to record His words?" But there are many other similar questions along those lines: "Why did God make Adam and Eve if he knew they would eat the apple?" "Why doesn't God make himself known more clearly to us?" Etc.
All these questions can only be evaluated by us according to our frame of reference. God's frame of reference is eternal. He also has more knowledge than we do.
I think this is why faith is considered one of the virtues. It's not just believing in facts we can't prove, but also in the motives and love God has for us.
I'm not required to have answers for these questions beyond "because it was good that it be so." But I have speculations on all these questions (minus the BoM one) as to why it was good. These are based on what I understand about God, and could be entirely wrong. And in searching for answers, I come to understand God better.
In the same way Einstein could take a single observed and very perplexing phenomenon (the constant speed of light from all frames of reference) and mentally extrapolate special relativity, we can take perplexing premises and attempt to extrapolate new meanings for them. I'm fully aware that Einstein's can be empirically proven and mine cannot - that's not the point of this. Reconciling seeming inconsistencies in a system is a good way to obtain deeper understanding of the system.
I also believe that the best answers anyone can come up with for many such questions are by necessity incomplete, but that each answer can fully illuminate one portion of the truth of the matter. It's why storytelling (Tolkien's myth and faerie stories) can hold so much truth.
Dagonee P.S., all of this presupposes faith. I'm not saying this is a reason for someone to convert. I'm saying once one accepts faith, the hard questions become opportunities for understanding, not difficulties.
[ June 15, 2005, 09:42 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I think it's his attempt to evangelize his athiesm.
I'm sure he'll find this method as successful as Rev. Phelps.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>> I did specify "per unit adherent". Obviously you need to take the size of your sample into account; I mean, duh.
That's true, you did. I didn't understand exactly what you were getting at, and I'm glad that you've cleared it up here.
I hope you'll excuse me; I'm still more interested in the way a person's faith or non-faith affected/influenced their criminal actions than I am in the numbers game.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:I gotta admit, Dog (and others), I assumed the original comment that started today's hullabaloo was intended as light humor, though not really that funny.
As I said, it wasn't a problem for me, either, and I wouldn't have started a fight over it. I haven't been that aware of KoM's past exploits, so that wasn't an issue. It was KoM's weird behavior after that comment that riled me up Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Dag,
Essentially, if I read your post right, having faith gives you the ability to give God the benefit of the doubt when something bad happens, because we have incomplete information.
Actually, right at the beginning of the KoM flame, I started thinking of justifications for the BoM quote:
(humorous) Those seeing crystals must have been made of calcite.
(serious) Smith was translating from another language. We don't know the syntax or idiosyncracies of that language. So for example, in spanish, all modifiers have to be of the same type, so they use double negatives all the time. In english, this sounds stupid, but in spanish it makes perfect sense. How would we know if the repetition was caused by a similar effect?
This response is to the part of your post about pre-supposed faith. It doesn't take faith to come up with a justification for something you don't believe. It only takes a willingness to look at it from someone else's point of view. So you don't need faith in God in order to be willing to look at the hard questions from a theistic point of view.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Essentially, if I read your post right, having faith gives you the ability to give God the benefit of the doubt when something bad happens, because we have incomplete information.
Essentially. I think there's much more to it than that, but yes, this is a decent summary.
quote:So you don't need faith in God in order to be willing to look at the hard questions from a theistic point of view.
The intellect and willingess to look at hard questions from another point of view allow one to come up with possible reasons for the hard facts. Faith let's one be sure that there is a reason, and that reason reconciles the hard fact with a loving omnipotent God.
Dagonee *Theistic in this case is used from a fairly specific standpoint.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
This made me feel good:
"Glenn can say it with credibility."
Thanks.
"The problem is with the word "no," not with the idea that some atheists might convert under such circumstances."
Excellent point.
dean's two explanations do pretty much nail why the "no atheists in foxholes" slogan is insulting though, #1 implies we're cowards, and #2 implies we're selfish. (or rather, are unable to be selfless)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I can't decide whether I've been insulted. *peruses pics* The blue is cool, and I like the poised pinky and bunny slippers. I'm not a Hawking fan, but that can be forgiven.
However, the other picture . . . um, one of my students took the one that is meant to be reminiscent of, neh?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>I can't decide whether I've been insulted.
Never. Well, not intentionally.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
KoM, you are in the category of people with whom it is impossible to have a civilized, intelligent conversation. It doesn't matter why you are in there - whether it is because you're nuts, you're not intelligent enough, you don't know how to talk to people, or you deliberately try to alienate, you have placed yourself in that catagory.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, why speak to me at all, then? The forum doesn't have an ignore function, but there's a perfectly good one in your brain, no?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Because you have shown, once or twice, faint shadows of glimmers of echoes of a decent Hatracker in there somewhere. I read your posts because there's always a chance you'll break out of form. I like being pleasantly surprised, and I want to leave that possibility open.
Which reminds me, time to update my "Evil and bonkers in our 'verse" thread.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I hope you'll excuse me; I'm still more interested in the way a person's faith or non-faith affected/influenced their criminal actions than I am in the numbers game.
Fair enough, but that's a much more difficult question to answer. I'm sure you know the old joke about the guy looking for his lost keys under the street lamp, because that's the only place he would be able to see them. It is not unusual to see scientists doing the equivalent, particulary in the softer sciences where the questions are quite hard. As a first pass, the numbers are a good indication. You have to start somewhere, and I fear neither of us has the time to get anywhere beyond starting, just for purposes of an Internet discussion.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Bank robbin' for Jesus!
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, in the evolution 'debate', there are several instances of either lying for Jesus, or being remarkably thick-headed for Jesus. Consider Kent Hovind, who (apparently sincerely) believes that dinosaur bones actually come from dragons.
And on the subject of robbery, I doubt you'll find many atheist televangelists.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, I'm rather partial to the people who try to say Darwin recanted on his deathbed, and make up/take out of context quotations from famous evolutionary biologists.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Indeed you speak truth. Then there's accusing Archaeopteryx of being faked, the various assertions of radioactive dating not working, the hoary old moon-dust argument... Jack Chick is excellent on this. His anti-evolution tracts aren't quite so hateful as the anti-Catholic / Mormon / Jew / Moslem / pet-hate-of-the-week ones, you can actually read them for humorous content.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: >>I can't decide whether I've been insulted.
Never. Well, not intentionally.
Aw. That apathy is slipping a bit. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
You wound me.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*twinkle* I didn't say anything about not insulting you. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, Glenn, all I can say is that I certainly meant nothing insulting by that quote, and in light of further examination I suppose I see how it could be construed as insulting-it is pretty absolute, after all (but I've only ever considered it absolute that atheists would convert in a foxhole, never that because they are cowards they wouldn't be there in the first place)-so I'll be more specific if I quote it or similar circumstances in the future.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I don't know about a foxhole, but I know I've seen accounts from atheists who've nearly been in a plane crash, thought they were certainly about to die, and didn't "convert".
Plus, there are atheists in the military, and I'd bet in Iraq as well (close as we're going to get to foxholes). Easy enough to check and see if there are, which may quickly disprove your theory, unless you're going to hold out for a literal foxhole.
Also, there are certainly atheists risking their lives as police officers and firefighters and the like and retaining their atheism; I've known a few.
Come to think of it, my Dad's a very weak agnostic despite coming under direct fire in the Vietnam evacuation several times.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Rakeesh,
Perspective is everything. I know that most people don't consider whether such a statement is insulting, because unless you're an atheist, it might never occur to you that it was.
Kind of like considering homosexuality a mental disease prior to the advent of psychology. It was just assumed to be true, and no one thought to ask gays if they wanted to be cured.
But eventually someone stands up and tells people they are insulted by such assumptions. So here we are.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*sigh* Look, guys, I was quoting it as just a saying, not a statement of fact. I should've been more clear about that, but I took it as obvious that despite the quote there are atheists in foxholes...just that sometimes, people do strange things when they come under such stress.
I've been an atheist before, and not been insulted by that quote-but that was a long time ago, and I admit I didn't think of the implications. I'm not very comfortable with being compared with someone who thinks homosexuals need to be 'cured'.
I assumed the statement was maybe an aphorism, not that it was literally true.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
We don't have to keep flogging it, Rakeesh.
Let's put it this way. I'm not insulted by your use of the phrase, I'm insulted by the phrase itself. I chalk up your use of the phrase to ignorance. That's not intended to be offensive, ignorance just means you didn't know.
Well, it matters to me, so I made sure you know. Now you do. No harm done.
Good enough?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I had a thought on this last night. Take a look from the opposite perspective: If someone decides during war that this is something a loving God would never allow, atheists would say this person has come to their senses and recognized something that should have been obvious all along. They would not consider the conversion to atheism to be something for which the convertee should be derided or insulted, but rather something for which they should be praised. Whereas a member of the faith they left would probably say the convertee lacked fortitude.
Now switch it around. An atheist converting under that situation would be viewed by members of his new faith as coming to his senses, whereas, to atheists, it might look like cowardice - someone who lacks conviction in their beliefs when faced with the reality of possible death.
In each case, members of the convertee's new faith can reasonably look at the conversion as both an act of courage and wisdom. The members of the convertee's old faith can reasonably look at the conversion as an act of cowardice and foolishness.
I don't think the phrase is particularly nice either way, and it's certainly counterproductive. But it should be easy to see why the perceptable insult wouldn't occur to people of the new faith, whichever that happens to be.
So now you know. And knowing...
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, I don't think the notion that an atheist might convert under the situation is insulting. I think the notion that all atheists might convert in that situation is insulting.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>So now you know. And knowing..
But that gets us right back into the battle, and the foxhole, and. . .
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Going back to the dog tags thing: As part of military indoctrination, enlisted men have to provide information that goes on their dogtags. One of those questions is: "What is your religion?" Apparently it's a standard catch phrase in the military if, when someone answers that question by saying they are an atheist, the person taking it down responds "there are no atheists in foxholes, son" and writes "no preference" on the form. The dogtags wind up with NP stamped on them.
Apparently, however, dogtags are not required to be military issue.
As I said, at the Godless Americans March on Washington, several hundred veterans/servicement got up on the stage. Several of them showed their dogtags, which they paid to have custom made, so they actually read "atheist."
"No Preference" appears to be a standard policy, and "No atheists in foxholes" is a standard reply. The real issue here is that the military is actually being demeaning.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Oh, I don't think the notion that an atheist might convert under the situation is insulting. I think the notion that all atheists might convert in that situation is insulting.
I'm just trying to explain why it's not obvious that it's insulting. The two reasons given - cowardice and selfishness - would not be attributed to someone converting under those circumstances by the typical religious person. The insult is perceived or not perceived because fo the very belief sets that define the two views.
That doesn't mean I don't think the insult is real. Just that there is very strong evidence it's not intended. Glenn said the lack of understanding was based on ignorance, which I agree with. I was trying to explain the reason for the ignorance, and to point out that the assumption that it can mean only one of the two things pointed out earlier is also based on ignorance.
That doesn't mean it's not insulting or that the phrase should be used. It means two groups of people who view the world through fundamentally different lenses will perceive insult and compliment very differently.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:"No Preference" appears to be a standard policy, and "No atheists in foxholes" is a standard reply. The real issue here is that the military is actually being demeaning.
In the usage you described it's absolutely demeaning and doesn't fall under the phenomenon I was describing.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Absolutely. "You're good enough to die for us, but only if we don't know you're gay."
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I thought Congress was getting rid of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Am I misremembering?
Posted by Fishtail (Member # 3900) on :
As far as I know, nowadayd, dogtags *are* military issue. It may just be that the deployment manager in question may not be aware that "athiest" is an option. I know our DM isn't all knowing about the system. Another reason for the existence of tags with "athiest" on them could be that the servicemember had them made on his own (most military museums have a little kisosk that lets anyone make a dogtag) and their DM didn't delve in when they asked the member if he/she had dogtags and if they were accurate.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I'm no expert, but what I was led to understand is that although the military does issue dogtags, you are allowed to have them made on your own. I assume they have to be made to mil spec.
quote: It may just be that the deployment manager in question may not be aware that "athiest" is an option.
This comes from a lot of military atheists that have experienced this, and over a long period of time. It's not just one or two deployment managers. And it's not a matter of picking from a list of authorized religions, it's a matter of not accepting the soldier's answer.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Now, how's this for religion influencing your crimes?
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
quote:I know our DM isn't all knowing about the system.
Man, that always ruins a good game of D&D.
quote:Now, how's this for religion influencing your crimes?
Is it the religion that caused that crime, or the way the individuals chose to construe it? Fanaticism that goes beyond all reason like that is pretty rare, and can be devoted to virtually any cause or misconception.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
What is the difference between 'religion' and 'the way an individual chooses to construe it'? Faith is surely an individual thing. The way people interpret their faith is the religion.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
In a foxhole [titter], the behavior of the atheist and the religious person are almost certain to be identical. Does it really matter what each person believes?
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
quote:Actually, right at the beginning of the KoM flame, I started thinking of justifications for the BoM quote
Actually, it's pretty simple to explain repetitions if you know the LDS account of the history of the Book of Mormon.
The original Book of Mormon artifact (the golden plates) was engraved on metal plates. If the writer(s) accidentally repeated something as they copied or composed, there was no good way to erase it.
Mormons also don't believe that God dictates every word of scripture. God provides inspiration, which a prophet then has to interpret according to his own language and preexisting interpretation of reality.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
quote:What is the difference between 'religion' and 'the way an individual chooses to construe it'? Faith is surely an individual thing. The way people interpret their faith is the religion.
To blame an entire intstitution, practiced for good by millions of people, for the misuse of it by a few, is disingenuous. Considering that there are lots and lots people who DON'T misconstrue Christianity to justify the crucifixion of schizophrenics, I think it is fair to assert that this was a choice made by a few individuals, and is not representative of the religion.
Any system of devotion, be it religious, political, pseudoscientific, or social, can be abused. That's an important thing for members of an organization or a culture to watch out for and combat. But the fact that these abuses occur does not invalidate the system within which it occurred.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
You asked for examples of how religion could influence someone's crimes. I gave you one. The 'few-bad-apples' argument is a little misleading, I think. The question is whether a system produces more, or fewer, bad apples per unit systemite. I assert that religions have more nutjobs per faithful than the secular average, and give an example of what I mean.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
I don't think it's reasonable to discuss matters of human conviction and faith in large-scale cost-benefit terms like this.
Basketball, for instance, produces more physical injuries than shuffleboard. Does that mean that schools, companies, and the whole country at large should ban basketball in favor of shuffleboard, because it will reduce injuries? I'm sure we could show, definitively, that doing so would have the desired effect. Certain injuries that would have occurred now will not occur. And specifically, injuries that were not the fault of the person receiving them would drop as fouls and collisions on the court completely ceased.
With religion, you can't even go this far and show definitively that crazy people who do crazy things would be less crazy without their faith. It's very difficult to show, for instance, that religion is the cause of craziness, rather than simply being something that is attractive to crazy people.
If you have a country in which most people grow up exposed to religion, but some take to it while others don't, how exactly do you prove that the people who took to it fanatically and turned out to be crazy were made crazy by the religion, and didn't just go for the most fanatical form of the local relgion because they were already crazy?
And then, with that unproven, you still have to deal with the fact that MOST beneficial things that humans do have risks. If we do a whole range of cost analyses like this, we will probably find that everything is capable of hurting or killing you or someone else, and if we go in with hostility to the subject matter (as you do with religion, and as I do with basketball), it is easy to say "This institution is NOT worth the cost!"
It is far too simple to say something like that about an institution that matters to other people's lives, and not to your own.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
But you are forgetting that I also believe the other effects of religion are bad. It's not just a question of the nutjobs, though this is the easiest effect to show. I also think it is bad when people believe in fairy tales, especially since that requires a particularly nasty kind of doublethink so one carefully doesn't apply actual reasoning skills to a large part of one's life. So, to follow your analogy, it is as if basketball didn't just lead to injuries, but also had a really nasty political ideology to go with it.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: In a foxhole [titter], the behavior of the atheist and the religious person are almost certain to be identical. Does it really matter what each person believes?
Is there a joke I'm missing? What's the titter?
The stories from atheists in combat usually revolve around the theist cowering in the bottom of the foxhole praying and hoping God will rescue them, while the atheist kicks them in the pants and tells them to get up and be productive, 'cause God isn't going to answer your prayer.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
BTW, unless those are first-hand reports of specific incidents, Glenn, I think those stories are pretty hostile. I've heard them put forth as general propositions, much like "no atheists in foxholes." Not that I think you did that here, but the story has been used that way.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Yes, they are first hand reports.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
And you're right of course that the ones that are repeated are the most sensational. Certainly an atheist whose foxhole partner is actively participating isn't going to make an issue out of whether they are religious or not.
Likewise, an atheist who cowers petrified in the foxhole isn't going to tell his story any differently.
I can't say of course how often the story is repeated as an urban legend, but I know I've heard them straight from the Vets at the GAMOW.
[ June 21, 2005, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: Glenn Arnold ]
Posted by Fishtail (Member # 3900) on :
It sounds to me like (as in my case) the deployment folks just aren't (weren't?) trained properly. And in the Army, the kind of attitude portrayed in those stories abounds. So while not surprising, it still might also not be predjudice as much as ignorance.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
KoM:
quote:But you are forgetting that I also believe the other effects of religion are bad. It's not just a question of the nutjobs, though this is the easiest effect to show.
You COULD also say the same thing about basketball if that were your particular hobby-horse ... you could say that it promotes aggressiveness, bitter rivalries, cheating, etc, and that in general, it is bad for society.
You could do that by applying some simple creative prioritization. If the things that basketball does well are not terribly important and the things that basketball does poorly or negatively are highly important, then it comes across as an overall horrible pursuit.
Your personal priorities place provability and exclusive reliance on objective fact near the top of the scale, while spiritual enlightenment, community-building, subjective self-understanding and growth, moral agreement and moral teaching, the propogation of culture, etc, fall much lower. Since most religion does not even attempt to satisfy the requirement you place at the top, it is valueless to you, despite the fact that the vast majority of people consider many of the other issues I listed to be at least as important.
And since you discount all of its positive values, the least harm that you can find in it becomes its overriding identity.
I contend that if you truly rely on objectivity, you will take into account the fact that you know very many intelligent people who actually find value in religion, and that therefore, your own priorities might actually be flawed and skewed heavily to one side of a scale that, in reality, is much more balanced.
Anyway, to continue quoting you ...
quote:I also think it is bad when people believe in fairy tales, especially since that requires a particularly nasty kind of doublethink so one carefully doesn't apply actual reasoning skills to a large part of one's life.
You've already been told exactly why the "fairy tale" thing is counterproductive. You only make yourself look more churlish when you persist in using it.
Have you ever had faith in a religion? Because the way you describe it comes across very strongly as an outsider who is trying to explain something he has never experienced, and is doing so in a pointlessly contemptuous way, while completely missing the point.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:spiritual enlightenment, community-building, subjective self-understanding and growth, moral agreement and moral teaching, the propogation of culture, etc, fall much lower.
In fact, I do not think religion does any of these things well.
quote:very many intelligent people who actually find value in religion
Actually, this is not entirely true. Within the communities I belong to, the smartest people tend to be atheists. I admit that this might be just my subjective impression; but in my academic communities, that impression tends to be confirmed by the grades given - not a perfect measure of intelligence, by any means, but more objective than my own impression, I'm sure you'll agree. Now, it;s true that in a physics department, even the lesser lights are pretty bright by ordinary-mortal standards; still, I find find it instructive that the outstanding ones tend to be non-religious. And, incidentally, my impression is backed up by several studies.
The remaining cases, I understand in terms of sheer social inertia; considered as a meme, religion is an extremely good one. Even highly intelligent people are capable of compartmentalising their minds to a remarkable degree; it'll take a bit of time for religion to fade completely even from the most intelligent strata of the population. Against habit and custom, intelligence fights in vain.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Glen, I was just being silly with the titter. 'Foxhole' sounds like 'tit-mouse' or 'Uranus' to me.
My point in my post was that, outside of the individual, what you believe doesn't matter as much as what you do. You say your friends say that religious people wouldn't see things for what they are but for what they wish they were and give up. While this is possible, let me point out that it often goes the opposite way. That religious people see things not for what they 'are', but what they might be and they work for something positive while those without 'vision' do not. But again, the important thing to me isn't what someone believes so much as what they do and whether they can change.
The problem here htat I see you and other atheists making is that I think you are buying into the whole religious hype. Objectively, there's nothing special about 'religious' thinking. What is it but human thought? How can thought, in and of itself, be bad? It seems to me that it can't, no more than a heartbeat can be bad.
Am I defending 'religion' or 'religious thinking' in general? No. I don't know what religion is, for one thing. I am just pointing out what I think is a fallacy in your argument.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Um. Without explicitly drawing the cheap and obvious analogy, are you sure you want to say that human thought cannot be bad?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Um. Yeah. I wanted to say what I said.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
So, taking an example completely at random, 'Malleus Maleficarum' is not a bad thing? You don't have to consider it religious if you don't want to, but it's certainly an example of human thought.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Read what I said, KoM.
Let me see if I can make it clearer. Let's say you are a master painter. You can make paintings of great beauty or you can make paintings of the worst perversions. If you don't show your paintings to the world, what effect can they have on the world? Sitting in your basement, how can they help or hurt anyone? How are they good or bad in and of themselves?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I see your point. But I would think that a man who has deep convictions, but never transforms them into the least action, is a rare bird indeed. Hence atheists object to the thoughts because they are the cause of actions we disapprove. In the example of your painter, certainly my paintings do little mewed up in my basement; but they have a mind of their own, and are always escaping to please or horrify my neighbours.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:In fact, I do not think religion does any of these things well.
My experience with my own religion is that it does these things well. Your perspective as an outsider to religion who treats it with prejudicial disdain does not impress me.
quote:Actually, this is not entirely true. Within the communities I belong to, the smartest people tend to be atheists.
Are you suggesting that this is true of Hatrack?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Are you suggesting that this is true of Hatrack?
Yes, I am; though I admit that it is not so easy for me to judge the intelligence of Hatrackers, since I cannot watch them solve problems. Also, the demographics here are a bit skewed; I think the believers are a touch over-represented, and certainly the Mormons are.
quote:My experience with my own religion is that it does these things well. Your perspective as an outsider to religion who treats it with prejudicial disdain does not impress me.
That is not entirely relevant to the point I was making. Given that I believe, for my own good reasons, that religion does not perform, your criticism
quote:You could do that by applying some simple creative prioritization
is not true. I am not prioritising creatively, I am arguing that religion does badly whatever your priorities are.
That said, let me go through your list :
spiritual enlightenment
A null term. A religion which is not true by definition does not enlighten. But even taking some particular religion at face value, all the others are plainly doing a rather bad job.
community-building
Anybody can build a community by excluding people. The trick is to include everyone.
subjective self-understanding and growth
Inventing a father figure to help you is 'growth'? Most people grow out of their imaginary friends. Incidentally, just how much self-understanding do you think our friend the priest, from my linked story, has? Granting that he's a fairly horrible example, though, building a life on lies is not usually considered 'self-understanding'. And again, even if we grant your religion is true, it is rather a minority.
moral agreement and moral teaching
Ridiculous. The Christian sects can't even agree on the death penalty. Moreover, the morality they teach comes in two kinds : The good bits were invented before the Jews ditched their mother goddess; the bad bits are straight desert-tribe punishments, one step up from driving pink monkeys out of the tribe.
the propagation of culture
Quite so, like the culture that beats children for being witches. I don't think you can blame that one on isolated nutjobs, either, belief in witches is apparently quite widespread. Apart from that, though, how about the nice practice of burning people at the stake for printing Bibles? Not to mention what missionaries usually do to a culture when they first encounter it.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
HOLY FREAKING CRAP, I was almost done with a HUGE FREAKING POST when I hit the Backspace key, and for some reason, IE took it to mean I wanted to go BACK several links. So I lost the post.
WHY THE HELL DOES THAT HAPPEN?!
I'll answer your annoying post later, KoM. I'm WAY too pissed off right now to deal with you civilly.
[ June 21, 2005, 01:24 AM: Message edited by: Puppy ]
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Puppy, I don't know why you even give KoM your time or your energy, especially if he upsets you like this. He's already demonstrated that he doesn't care who he offends or how badly, he won't change his mind, nor will he concede any other point of view as anything approaching plausible. So, I repeat, why give him your energy?
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
Actually, I'm really glad that Geoff takes the time to counter posts like KoM's. Regardless of how KoM takes Puppy's posts, I often find that *I* learn a lot from 'em. Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Agreed. I appreciate Geoff's thoughtful responses too.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
See? The universe is on my side. This kind of thing never happens to atheists. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: See? The universe is on my side. This kind of thing never happens to atheists.
You are quite right. God doesn't help those who don't want it. I find that when one of my posts bombs out, 9 times out of 10 it was better that I didn't post it (at least not without some intensive editing).
Funny, some of your posts remind me (in tone only) of the ones I'm glad later I haven't posted.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Wow. I've never been on a message board where so much paternal head shaking went on.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:God doesn't help those who don't want it.
You know, if god exists, he also doesn't help plenty of people who do want it.
I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but saying "god only helps those who want his help" is the same as saying "god only reveals himself to those who already believe in him."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Wow. I've never been on a message board where so much paternal head shaking went on.
What kind of head shaking was this?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but saying "god only helps those who want his help" is the same as saying "god only reveals himself to those who already believe in him."
In other words, speaking the truth. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Those are some pretty useless -- and, unsurprisingly, condescending -- truths.
Added: Wow, that's snarky. Well,
Added 2: Jeepers, I'm still being rude. Sorry. That is more or less how I feel about those statements, though -- there's no point in saying either one to someone who doesn't believe.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Actually, these aren't condescending at all. They are, in at least two religions, fundamental underlying reasons for the way God interacts with humanity.
Calling them useless shows either great lack of understanding of what they mean or great condescension in and of itself.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:there's no point in saying either one to someone who doesn't believe.
That's not true. There's no point in saying them to you.
But there's a perfect point in saying them in response to a snarky, passive aggressive comment implying the invalidity of religion based on a believer losing a post made by an anti-religious troll. It's both on point and proportional.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
For the record, I believe God helps everyone -- but not everyone is aware of/open to that help.
I was just snarking back at KoM, which I try to avoid (not worth my energy). *unrepentant*
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote:But there's a perfect point in saying them in response to a snarky, passive aggressive comment implying the invalidity of religion based on a believer losing a post made by an anti-religious troll.
If you wish to respond in kind, yes. Do you think they're useful in other situations, though? Would you tell an atheist who you were discussing religion with that god only reveals himself to those who already believe? What use would it be?
That's what I was talking about. I never claimed to be sticking up for KoM; he's quite capable of doing that himself.
-----------
rivka, that's pretty different, and unlike the other one is a statement worth mulling over, even for atheists.
Added: I've been lucky enough in my life that if I believed in god I'd certainly be grateful for how things have gone for me.
Added 2: ...but of course the kicker is whether or not my unusual luck is evidence of divine assistance.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Would you tell an atheist who you were discussing religion with that god only reveals himself to those who already believe? What use would it be?
While I don't believe it precicely the way you have said, and I wouldn't say it that way even if I did, explaining that idea (or a very similar one) could be very useful in explaining one's beliefs about God.
Are you bothered that people believe that, or are you bothered that they would admit that they believe it?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Added 2: ...but of course the kicker is whether or not my unusual luck is evidence of divine assistance.
Or even just part of it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Or whether you're willing to deal with the implications that the flipside of having unusual luck means that God is helping you out while crapping on other people, and why that would be.
Smug self-satisfaction tastes less sweet when it comes on the back of someone in a concentration camp screaming for God's help to be met with nothing.
Honestly, I think Calvin came up with the only good answer to that problem that I've ever seen. Of course, his God was evil.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Would you tell an atheist who you were discussing religion with that god only reveals himself to those who already believe? What use would it be?
My belief is actually a little different: that peopl can stop God from helping them in certain ways and in certain circumstances. Disblief in God might not be enough to stop such help, but active hatred would likely be.
As for the God only reveals Himself to those who believe, there is a very real possibility that direct interaction of God will rob a person of free will, something God finds precious. Only certain people are capable of maintaining their identity in such a situation, and belief is likely a prerequisite for that.
So if an atheist said to me, "If God wants me to believe in Him, He should reveal Himself to me," my response would likely start with something similar to "God only reveals Himself to those who believe in Him."
As for indirect revalation, I believe all of us get that constantly. But that's clearly different than what an atheist in that situation means. And yes, I've had that exact sentence said to me more than once, so it's not purely hypothetical.
As for rivka's post being a response in kind, it really wasn't. It's the only real response to the implied point KoM was making. I think a more fully-explained version would be more accurate, but that doesn't make it condescending.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Are you bothered that people believe that, or are you bothered that they would admit that they believe it?
I'm bothered that they think it can help others toward making the same leap of faith. It's similar to people who tell me, when they learn I'm an atheist, that I just didn't look hard enough for god (or something similar). They have no knowledge of how I looked, or how hard.
quote:Or even just part of it.
Well, yes. But there are enough unlucky people in the world that my good fortune is not, to me, compelling enough evidence to merit reopening the question of god's existence. I prefer to take that ball and run with it, so to speak -- that is, I set aside the question of god's existence some time ago because I realized I don't need a final answer in order to live a happy life, so I'm going to get on with living the happy life and not worry about whether god exists. You could call me an apatheist after Chris Bridges' style, I suppose.
--------------
Squick, I think that post is over the top. You don't need to phrase it like that to make your point about the problem of suffering.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The trick is to include everyone.
Given human nature a human community cannot be viable by doing this, KoM. You certainly do not include everyone, simply those who believe precisely as you do. Everyone else is a brainwashed, unworthy, almost-certainly stupid sheep.
You also demonstrate constantly how worthless your own anectdotal experiences are that atheists are smarter than theists. You think that theists are fairy-tale believing nitwits-are you suggesting those are the people with whom you spend your time? I would think that you'd go out of your way, as much as you can, to associate with your own dittoheads.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
twink, I disagree, but then the just world hypothesis is one of the things I get worked up about.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Not to mention the fact that you do not know they received nothing, Mr. Squicky. Unless atheism includes certainty of what happens after death-definition of faith-you cannot make that assumption.
Your own smug self-satisfaction, and that of KoM, becomes more murky when you hear of Jews who found some power and solace in their faith in the face of their horrible ordeals.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I'm bothered that they think it can help others toward making the same leap of faith
I didn't see any indication of that in this thread.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Rakeesh, you have to understand that it only other people's self-satisfaction that is offensive. Their own smells like roses.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The article mentioning the study which cited no statistics, Mr. Squicky, must reach some strange conclusions about religious people who work for, say, Habitat for Humanity or in soup kitchen or in homeless shelters.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Right. See when God answers my prayers or even just decides to do me a good turn by, I don't know, curing me of cancer, he's being a just God. But when a 5 year old dies of cancer, well, God saw fit to answer the desperate prayers that he be cured with him dying in agony...well, we don't know that he didn't give him something.
The simplistic "God answers my prayers for material benefits or a good life or a miracle." carries with it the dark side that he doesn't do this for tons of people who are more deserving than you. Good people suffer, historically (and Biblically) at the hands of people who pray for the power to make them suffer. Bad people prosper. If God turns bad stuff away from you, you have to realize that for some reason he doesn't decide to do this for plenty of other people and that they often suffer and die in horrible ways without solace, without understanding.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
God has ignored my prayers a thousand times. My step-brother got better, but my mother died, at 47, of the exact same thing.
You speak in willfull ignorance when you say that religious people are those who have not suffered and had their prayers go unanswered. I have been blessed in many ways, but I have also been NOT blessed in many ways, and I didn't get to pick which prayers were answered the way I wanted them to be.
If you want to continue in your ignorance, do what you are doing. If you want to know the truth about the people you scorn, turn off your prejudices and listen.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote: Mr. Squicky, must reach some strange conclusions about religious people who work for, say, Habitat for Humanity or in soup kitchen or in homeless shelters.
This statement makes no sense to me. Could you explain how that came out of anything I said or linked?
And jeez, even if you're willing to disagree with an idea based on a quick blurb on a website and not look into the large amount of information on it, give me at least the credit that I may know a little bit more about it than fits on a page or even just admit that the issue is not bounded by what was mentioned on one web page.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:I didn't see any indication of that in this thread.
Is this a roundabout way of telling me you think I'm out of line?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If God turns bad stuff away from you, you have to realize that for some reason he doesn't decide to do this for plenty of other people and that they often suffer and die in horrible ways without solace, without understanding.
You do not know they died without solace, without understanding, Mr. Squicky, as I said before. Unless your understanding of sociology and psychology extends into the realms of the mindset of people dead and on the deathbed?
quote:Right. See when God answers my prayers or even just decides to do me a good turn by, I don't know, curing me of cancer, he's being a just God. But when a 5 year old dies of cancer, well, God saw fit to answer the desperate prayers that he be cured with him dying in agony...well, we don't know that he didn't give him something.
When someone prays for, say, a cure for cancer and they are cured, they don't know for sure that God cured them of cancer or why. Few theists indeed believe that God grants prayers just because the person asks nicely for stuff. Similarly, the small child who dies in agony, we do not know why God chose not to directly intervene and cure him (although there are those theists who believe God lacks that power).
We don't know why. We mourn the death and weep with the pain of it. We comfort ourselves by our faith that there is more to life than this world. That is part of the nature of faith, and it's something you do not believe in, I realize.
But for you to say that nothing was done for that child is a statement of faith, too.
As for my HfH quote, I was remarking that although the article you linked implies that religious people tend to be less just than other people, I wonder what it makes of people whose faith motivates them to do charity work or to make efforts towards a more equitable, just world? Such as religious people who work for HfH, or homeless shelters, etc.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:See when God answers my prayers or even just decides to do me a good turn by, I don't know, curing me of cancer, he's being a just God.
I don't see what that has to do with justice. Mercy -- perhaps. But I don't see how justice is served by keeping people from dying from cancer.
quote:Is this a roundabout way of telling me you think I'm out of line?
No it wasn't.
But now that I think about it, I think you are a little bit. It's almost, but not quite, like you took something somebody said and then got upset because if that were said in a different context, it could be condescending.
But I've done the same thing. Recently.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Rakeesh, We do acutally have deathbed statements from many of these types of people. Certainly this is true for the some of the good people that praying folk tortured to death. We have reports from life and living in the concentration camps and, yeah, there was a little bit of intense crushing despair in evidence there. edit: Many of those people then died. More than a few of them killed themselves. I can't say with 100% certainty that they weren't filled with soalce and understanding when they died, but I think that the conclusion that they weren't may be somewhat more reasonable than that they were,
And again, I fail to see where what you are saying comes out of what I said or what I linked, none of which implies that religious people are uniformly anything.
The statement that I think you're compeltely misunderstanding is
quote:They found that people who have a strong tendency to believe in a just world also tend to be more religious, more authoritarian, more conservative, more likely to admire political leaders and existing social institutions, and more likely to have negative attitudes toward underprivileged groups. To a lesser but still significant degree, the believers in a just world tend to "feel less of a need to engage in activities to change society or to alleviate plight of social victims."
That doesn't say anything like what you seem to think it's saying.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Mr. Squicky, are you ignoring my posts because it is personal, or because it messes up your theory and you ignore all information that doesn't fit your theories?
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
KoM, here we go again:
quote:Yes, I am; though I admit that it is not so easy for me to judge the intelligence of Hatrackers, since I cannot watch them solve problems. Also, the demographics here are a bit skewed; I think the believers are a touch over-represented, and certainly the Mormons are.
A clearer admission of prejudice I have never before seen
The fact that you apparently only recognize or value the kind of intelligence that is measured by aptitude tests is strange and telling ... I mean, you've seen Hatrackers solve problems every second you've been here — but they've all been social, political, and philisophical problems, which apparently ... don't count? Or perhaps you're unable to recognize the intelligence of a person who comes to a different conclusion than yours, which eliminates, by default, every person here who believes in God.
Rather circular reasoning there ... you think believers in God are relatively unintelligent because if they WERE intelligent, they would obviously not believe in God. Fun when your premise "proves" your conclusion, eh? Removes the need to ever think critically or question yourself.
quote: spiritual enlightenment
A null term. A religion which is not true by definition does not enlighten. But even taking some particular religion at face value, all the others are plainly doing a rather bad job.
I'm not talking about someone reading a book and then suddenly realizing that the world is flat. I'm talking about (for example) someone reading the teachings of Christ, and having an epiphany that a life lived for others is more valuable and rewarding than a life lived for the self. This kind of moral ideal is of inestimable value to society, yet it cannot be arrived at through hard science. Who is to say, from a scientific perspective, what a human "should" or "should not" do? Science can experimentally and statistically lay out the likely consequences of different actions, but who determines which consequences are desirable and which are not? For what greater purpose are individual human beings ever going to choose a necessary sacrifice over an immediate gain? Even if God or an organized church never comes into the equation, those kinds of choices are, by their nature, moral and spiritual and not scientific. Religion gives society a vehicle for progogating moral ideals and offering spiritual enlightenment to the common man, and not just to the rare individual with a strange penchant for philosophy.
quote: community-building
Anybody can build a community by excluding people. The trick is to include everyone.
A bizarrely irrelevant point. Human beings have needs that are best provided for by communities of only a few hundred individuals — a neighborhood, a workplace, a school, or in this case, a church. Communities this size allow all their members to personally know and value one another as individuals, which encourages friendship, fair treatment, support in times of need, mutual raising of children in a stable environment that enforces standards of behavior, etc. If you can come up with a way to create a community of this scale that also "includes everyone", you will probably receive a Nobel prize in mathematics
200 != 6 x 10^9
Anyway, ANY true community that is smaller than six billion people will involve some kind of common thread that draws these particular people together. That's not exclusion, it's just community. People in a neighborhood typically share a common socioeconomic status. People at work or school usually belong to the same industry or have the same educational background. And people who belong to the same Church share a set of moral and spiritual beliefs. Honestly, I can't think of a BETTER unifying factor than shared belief for bringing together a community that provides the amenities listed above, especially as the concept of the "neighborhood" suffers through its final death throes, at least here in America.
My own Mormon ward brings together people from a wide variety of socioeconomic, educational, language, racial, personality, and experiential backgrounds. I have resources as a member of this community that help me do anything from moving to a new house to fixing a leak to getting a used crib to raising my children to finding an immediate social support network when I move into a new area. Everyone should have a community like this, however they come by it.
I'm curious, would you even be interested in involving yourself in a tight-knit community that involved people with strong religious faith, or who were less educated than you? From your inability to even recognize the intelligence of people who disagree with you, I find this incredibly unlikely. So now it leaves me to wonder ... which of us is eager to exclude people?
quote: subjective self-understanding and growth
Inventing a father figure to help you is 'growth'? Most people grow out of their imaginary friends. Incidentally, just how much self-understanding do you think our friend the priest, from my linked story, has? Granting that he's a fairly horrible example, though, building a life on lies is not usually considered 'self-understanding'. And again, even if we grant your religion is true, it is rather a minority.
I'm not sure how you think your little jabs here are in any way relevant. I bring up personal spiritual growth, and you jump to the existence or non-existence of God? And wait ... this is supposed to convince me that atheists are MORE intelligent than religious people?
quote: moral agreement and moral teaching
Ridiculous. The Christian sects can't even agree on the death penalty. Moreover, the morality they teach comes in two kinds : The good bits were invented before the Jews ditched their mother goddess; the bad bits are straight desert-tribe punishments, one step up from driving pink monkeys out of the tribe.
Congratulations, you found an issue about which some Christians disagree! For your next task, how about we drop you in the savannah, and you find us a blade of grass! Ready, GO!
Seriously, of COURSE people within a religion disagree about stuff. It would be frightening if you found a group that had no disagreements. I think those are called cults
But here is the real question you're trying to dodge. Is it good or bad for a society to adopt a set of shared moral ideals to govern their expectations of one another? Ideals like "it is wrong to exploit someone else for your exclusive benefit" or "harming another person is wrong" or "emotional abuse that goes beyond THIS limit should be punished"? Or even values as simple as "avoiding the deaths of many humans is a good thing" or "our way of life should be continued into the next generation". Are these important for us to establish as standards for society that people are held to?
quote: the propagation of culture
Quite so, like the culture that beats children for being witches. I don't think you can blame that one on isolated nutjobs, either, belief in witches is apparently quite widespread. Apart from that, though, how about the nice practice of burning people at the stake for printing Bibles? Not to mention what missionaries usually do to a culture when they first encounter it.
Missionaries from my church do not do ... whatever nameless horror it is that you are citing Yes, some terrible things have been done in the past, but I think that the behavior of my own people demonstrates that the concept of a "missionary" does not necessarily bring with it all the horrible things you would like it to.
Culture does not ONLY include the horrifying anecdotes that you like to drag out as though they were relevant to the religious people represented here. Culture includes everything humans transmit to one another through memes, rather than genes. Moral values, for instance (and I'm talking about the kinds of things I cited above, not the usual pundits' definition of that phrase), are well-propogated by religion, as are many other community rituals and customs that draw people together. Such things are easy to dismiss if you have never been a part of them, but realize that it is (among other things) the suppression and destruction of such cultural edifices for which "missionaries" are so commonly derided. Are you eager to join their number, as the inquisition of atheism?
One final point ... if you insist upon citing the most extreme examples of the misuse of religion as though it represented religious behavior in general, even in the face of a group of very reasonable, intelligent religious folk, should I also cite the acts of Stalin, Ho Chi Minh, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot as examples of what happens when you let atheists run wild? Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
gah! I read the first page of this thread and thought, "my my, a cool tact to take by the gay/lesbian movement towards those abusing their tax-free status" and moved on to the last page where, lo and behold, the original thread idea is long gone and it was Godwyned by page three.
Ugh.
Anyway, I don't know if it was covered but I know of a lot of tax-free religious organizations that GET money from the government daily. In fact, I will be authorizing payments to Catholic Charities and the Lutheran run LEAP (an organization that helps people with disabilties get jobs).
Churches posturing and internally refusing to marry gay couples is totally cool. Go for it. There are plenty of churches that will do it (Unitarian-Universalist, many UCC congregations, some Methodist, some Lutheran, etc.). When a church goes outside of its walls to actively work towards oppressing a group of people in what is clearly a partisan issue (contrary to the first page response that said it wasn't, it is...).
If a church actively does work for the betterment of the nation or the world in ways that at worst only harm criminals (by reducing the amount of drugs they can sell, keeping rapists from their prey, keeping spouse abusers from their wives, etc.) then it is clearly doing the work that benefits the nation. If they take a stance that actively hurts people that aren't criminal (by national laws, not by religious laws or doctrines) then I think they are going to have to keep it in the church.
Most church organizations do keep it within their walls. Some don't and actively court their chosen representatives (Bill Frist's "Justice Sunday" comes to mind...clearly partisan mixing of politics and church). This is a bad thing. I think churches can freely interact with their chosen political candidate. All they have to do is give up the their tax-free status to do so and go for it. One would think the more vocal holier-than-thous would be fine with it...Mega-churches that put their pastor's in the 7 or 8 or figure income range shouldn't have a problem giving back to their country. I can see it being an issue when the Catholic leadership at the local level live in near poverty conditions but with some of these mega-churches (which are growing by leaps and bounds, oddly enough) then go ahead...preach the Republican way (or Democrat...being U-U I know a tightrope walk when I see it) just be prepared to file for taxes next year.
Now...I got that out. Feels much better. Back to the...er...you know...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Mr. Squicky,
quote:We do acutally have deathbed statements from many of these types of people. Certainly this is true for the some of the good people that praying folk tortured to death. We have reports from life and living in the concentration camps and, yeah, there was a little bit of intense crushing despair in evidence there. edit: Many of those people then died. More than a few of them killed themselves. I can't say with 100% certainty that they weren't filled with soalce and understanding when they died, but I think that the conclusion that they weren't may be somewhat more reasonable than that they were
Wow, that's pretty lame, the part where you said, "praying people tortured to death." Funny, I wonder what people under Stalin or Mao while they were being tortured to death by atheists.
You don't mention the people at all who got some measure of solace from their religion, and I don't think you're asserting there were none. I did not say that all people who die in agony are in fact dying in peace and comfort, despite what our senses tell us, though I can see why you'd read my words that way.
I was saying that we don't know what happens to someone after they die, Mr. Squicky. You have absolutely no more certainty on that issue than I do-anyone who claims to know is, by definition, speaking of their faith. You and I don't know that after they die, they aren't immediately granted succoor, reprieve, from their suffering. You and I don't really know how the mind works when it is dying in agony, because hey, the people who do (if they know at all) are dead.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I had an amusing and frustrating conversation with a self-termed humanist friend of mine (I say that not to be derisive, but because he told me he was a humanist in the course of this conversation) in which he explained in detail that those people were actually religious, too. They set up religions, and so once again, religion was the source of most of mankind's wicked deeds.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Errr...how are Stalin or Mao relevant? I don't see how athiests torturing people touches my point at all.
When not all people who pray receive solace, you've got the same situation as before, where God decides to help some people and to not help others. In fact, I'd say it's even worse, because while you can make the "There's some plan going on here that God's intervention in the material world by curing your sickness would disturb." for the more material "miracles", what justifiction is there for not providing someone with comfort when they are unjustly dying in suffering that you have the power to prevent but choose not to?
I have no idea what happens after we die. In fact, you'll notice, I didn't mention this at all and it doesn't make up any part of my argument, which was firmly centered around the idea that the idea that God answers prayers in this life comes with the dark side of him not answering the prayers of plenty of more deserving people. To me, there's something wrong with the idea of a being who will exert himself to make sure that one team or another wins a meaningless professional sports championship but sits by while a tsumani decimates whole countries and leaves the survivors in sufferign and squalor. And I find that whenever people credit their good fortune to something like divine intervention because of their prayers or their worthiness, they're spitting in all the faces of all the masses of people who did not have this good fortune.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Errr...how are Stalin or Mao relevant? I don't see how athiests torturing people touches my point at all.
That seems to be the point -- that the religious bent of the torturer has no bearing, so why did you bring it up?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:To me, there's something wrong with the idea of a being who will exert himself to make sure that one team or another wins a meaningless professional sports championship but sits by while a tsumani decimates whole countries and leaves the survivors in sufferign and squalor.
I agree.
Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
quote: Is it good or bad for a society to adopt a set of shared moral ideals to govern their expectations of one another? Ideals like "it is wrong to exploit someone else for your exclusive benefit" or "harming another person is wrong" or "emotional abuse that goes beyond THIS limit should be punished"? Or even values as simple as "avoiding the deaths of many humans is a good thing" or "our way of life should be continued into the next generation". Are these important for us to establish as standards for society that people are held to?
I'll bite. Yes, I do think it's good for a society to agree on such a thing. However, I don't think religion helps with this much. Why? Because since nearly everything is based on the interpretation of archaic texts (the Bible, for example) or the interpretation of the words of a leader (Jesus, for example) or tradition or feelings, rather than on reason, two people can look at the same sources and come to completely opposite conclusions.
Consider slavery in America. Christians on the one side argued that Jesus said that slaves should be subject to their masters. The other side took the same Bible "Love your neighbor as yourself" and argued that the slaves ought to be freed.
But because everything in the Bible is by default true, it all comes down to interpretation.
If you're making your arguments by logic, when you have good facts, you'll come to good conclusions. If you just accept a priori what people said a long time ago, you'll stop looking for facts, and who knows what your conclusions will be.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
porter, The point I was making was that in many cases the apparent "reward" for people's praying was the power to torture and kill others or have God do it for them. That's one of the main themes of Old Testament. You know, God using his divine power against the innocent.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Some things have changed, in the eyes of Christians.
And I daresay they would define innocence differently than you would anyway, in terms of the OT.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Dean, you make an excellent case for not relying exclusively on the interpretation of ancient texts for establishing shared moral values. I agree with you, absolutely, for many of the same reasons. My church is actually founded, in part, on the idea that religion should be alive and responsive to new situations, and not dependent on words written centuries ago.
So you don't really say anything that shows that religion and spirituality, in general, are incapable of providing useful moral standards. Just that certain religions with ineffective strategies have run into problems doing so.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
By the way, all this citing of specific cases in which religious people did bad things in history is not useful.
Take the Spanish Inquisition. They did terrible things, and they were Catholic. They were also RENAISSANCE SPANIARDS. Which of these do you think contributed more to their brutality? The fact that they believed in Jesus, or the fact that they lived in barely-post-medieval Europe? The latter seems far more likely to me.
Citing even a WHOLE BUNCH of correlation doesn't in any way imply causation. Throughout most of history, the vast majority of people, in general, were religious. So what do you know, a lot of horrible things were done by religious people in those days. Gosh, what a surprise.
Then, finally, ONE time in history, a major society emerged who claimed atheism as their universal religion — the Soviets and other Communists. Did they suddenly cease the brutality? NO, it went on, just as horribly as before, if not moreso. If this were a laboratory experiment, it would appear to be early proof that removing religion from the equation does not make people less fanatical, violent, or brutal, and that therefore, religion is not the cause of human violence and brutality.
And yet the same old arguments get rehashed, decade after decade. I'd really appreciate it if people who apparently value logic and scientific inquiry so highly would apply its principles universally when they deal with other people, and not just when it benefits them in an argument.
I suspend my skepticism about my own personal religious experiences because of subjective observations I have made that I cannot transmit to other people. But I don't use my own implicit faith in the "rightness" of my argument as an excuse to use inflammatory and obnoxious tactics against my opponents in a debate. If you can't defend your position through reasonable and fairminded means, you should be reexamining it yourself.
Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
quote:God has ignored my prayers a thousand times. My step-brother got better, but my mother died, at 47, of the exact same thing.
You speak in willfull ignorance when you say that religious people are those who have not suffered and had their prayers go unanswered. I have been blessed in many ways, but I have also been NOT blessed in many ways, and I didn't get to pick which prayers were answered the way I wanted them to be.
In reading Michael Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things, we come across a demonstration of psychicness. You've seen those TV shows where the one person looks at a card and the other people try to guess which card it is? Well, they were doing this as a group of people, and they got a whole range of correct answers. Some people got eight or nine right. Some got six or seven right. Some got five or six right. Some got less. However, the person doing the demonstration explained the results this way: If you got a high score then that means that you're psychic and you've got some good experience using your skills. If you got a medium score, then you're psychic, but you could do with some more practice. If you got very few correct ones, then you're psychic (probably very psychic), but you've blocked off your ability to recieve.
The whole prayers-answered thing seems the same way to me.
If you pray and your prayers are answered, good. Prayer works!
If you pray and your prayers are not answered, then god is testing you or giving you greater opportunities for growth or comforting you. Good. Prayer works!
If (as is most likely) you pray for a lot of things and some of them come true and some don't, well, you don't understand it yet. Perhaps this thing wasn't the right thing for you to recieve or you needed something else. Good. Prayer works!
If you assume the result, then whatever happens seems to prove that it's accurate. Everyone does it, of course, but that doesn't really make it a useful way of finding out information.
When I was religious, I prayed for a lot of things, most of them not all that unlikely. Like once I got transferred out of the class my best friend was in, and I prayed and prayed and prayed about for like three weeks, and at the end of the three weeks, I had made some new friends in my class and had found ways of seeing my old friend outside of class, so I counted that as a prayer answered. But it was fairly unlikely that they would transfer my friend, but it was fairly likely that I'd make new friends, so does this really count? Or was this something I did on my own and would've done anyway whether I'd prayed or not?
It's kind of like when I worked in a bookstore and I would go to all this extra effort to figure out which books classes were reading, order plenty to go around, and when the last minute parents would come in and ask for it, and I pulled it off the shelf from where I'd put it for just this eventuality, they'd say, "Praise Jesus!" as though Jesus were the one ordering books for them and not me right in front of them.
People mostly pray for fairly likely things, and whether or not they get these things, they seemed reasonably satisfied. This seems to me to say more about human psychology than about the efficacy of prayer.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
I've found prayer much more useful as a source of spiritual guidance than as a source of everyday miracles. I do believe in miracles, very strongly, but they are very rare, and I have little to no expectation that I will be the recipient of one. It's not a lack of faith, it's just a realistic extrapolation from the evidence I've seen. So I don't expect God to make my life easier. I only ask Him to help me learn from it.
Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
Soviet Russia was indeed brutal, Puppy. However, what did they replace religion with? Did they replace it with reason and science? Enlightenment-like philosophy? Value of the individual? Well, no. Did they replace it with an almost-religious cult of the leader? Um, yeah.
Perhaps this is because they declared the end of religion abruptly without changing the minds or thought-patterns of the people-- or of the rulers. Perhaps it's because they declared that religion was bad without offering something else (such as reason and rationality) to replace it.
I don't want to brainwash people that religion is bad or to outlaw it. I just think that people ought to try to root out irrationalities within themselves, and people who are unaware of their irrationality ought to have it pointed out to them.
Religion is an irrationality. It doesn't always even pretend to rationality. (For example "God won't show himself to people who don't already believe in him.") It seems to me that the good things that religion offers can be offered by things that are not religions, and religions lead too often to how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin-type arguments and anti-science, stem-cell-research-is-bad type attitudes and policies.
Catholics, for example, spend billions on some cathedrals and do relatively little to help the poor. Catholic doctrine (such as the rules against birth control and STD control) actively seem designed to further oppress the poor, which we know runs contrary to the opinions of its alleged founder.
If religion could be purged of such misguided ideas, I would have less against it, and might even approve of it as a social club. However, as it stands, nothing it does seems to redeem it from basically encouraging people to waste time and money on non-factually-based solutions for their problems while ignoring reality.
Some people find their religions so valuable that while they know that their religions are historically completely inaccurate and not good predictors of things to come or even of right behavior, they still follow them. Other people don't know or care in what ways their religions are historically completely inaccurate, have incorrectly predicted the future or how often they've changed their minds about the morally correct thing to do. For me, having found all of that out about three or four different religions was what ended my ability to accept it.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, but that doesn't mean you need to strap one on your arm.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Geoff, I'm not sure if that way aimed at me, but under the assumption that it was, I don't think you're reading me correctly. In this thread, or where I talk about the Enlightenment, or in the Happy Athiest's Day thread, I am talking about logical systematic reasons why I have problems with some aspects of many religions. It bothers me when people, whether pro or con, take "religion" as a unitive concept as opposed to made up of systems, concepts, and structures. Religion as an applied but general term is meaningless. However, there are poeple who have problems with many incarnations of religion (and who find many of the same elements in the "atheist" counter-examples people bring up) not because they hate religion or like to feel superior to those poor deluded fools, but because we have problems with many of the things, independent of where they express themselves, and find that many religions contain these things.
If you were just talking about KOM, then, you know, as someone who all that previous is true for, I wish he were not on a side that could be seen to coincide with my own.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Heh heh It was a general, disfocused rant, but it was mostly triggered by KoM.
I personally think the problem in most of these cases is FANATICISM, which is a phenomenon that occurs in, but is definitely not restricted to, religion.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't think it's anywhere near as simple as that (I'm getting into it in some depth in the Jay's stupid Atheist's Day thread). But then again, figuring it out is what I do with my life, so I'd be out of a job if it was.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Nothing is simple, of course, but I had to decide between writing a single sentence or writing a huge post, and the sentence seemed like a better choice Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Catholics, for example, spend billions on some cathedrals and do relatively little to help the poor.
You know this? You have numbers (real ones)? Or are you saying this because if it were true, it would support your beliefs?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
I honestly think that KoM and I would agree about this if he recognized that I'm actually opposed to fanatical behavior and fortress mentalities even within my own religion, and that these kinds of attitudes and behaviors are the real culprit. They afflict many religions, but they also afflict just as many political parties, advocacy groups, and nationalist cultures. If he could quit blaming the actions of fanatics on religion in general, and if he could quit lumping me in with the crazies, we could actually work on the same side.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Critically comparing a religion's expenditures on worship sites to their contributions to charity presupposes that the worship and other experiences that take place at those sites have no value. And incorrectly so. Religions EXIST, in part, because people need or desire those experiences. For a religion NOT to provide them would be a serious dereliction of duty.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Complaining about it is like saying the states are wasting our education dollars building schools.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Ahhh, but there are buildings and then there are buildings. Consider St. Peter's, the church that lost Germany for the Catholic Church.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You're obfuscating the point - any complaints about the way churches spend money on buildings ignores the value of the buildings.
I am uncomfortable with singling out the Catholic church, especially there are many faithful Catholics on Hatrack. I am surprised you are not.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Errr...no I'm not. I'm putting it into a wider context. One of the major influences of Martin Luther's reformationist breaks with the Catholic Church was the issues surrounding the building of St. Peter's. It's a truely awe-insipring building, but there was some pretty bad stuff that went along with building it, edit: not the least of which was it's tremendous cost.
I find your assertion that I'm singling out Catholics by mentioning the one of the most famous historical disputes over the bulding a religious building somewhat bizarre. Could you explain your logic?
[ June 21, 2005, 04:58 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:but there are buildings and then there are buildings. Consider St. Peter's, the church that lost Germany for the Catholic Church.
It's hard to figure out what meaning you'll claim when the original sentence "there are buildings, and then there are buildings", but it looks like you think some buildings are okay, but others are not. Then you gave an example of one that is not.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
What the crap are you talking about?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Were the words I used too big for you? It's bad enough getting religion in general denigrated - try not to do it to specific faiths.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
In this case he's mentioning a very specific, historically well-known incident (well, series of incidents centered around a particular building).
Is it now denigrating of a religion to mention the fact that something happened which relates to that religion?
Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
quote:Complaining about it is like saying the states are wasting our education dollars building schools.
Yes, the money is going to where the people who gave it wanted it to go. That does not mean that it's the best place for the money to be spent or that there are not far better uses for it.
Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
I don't see why religion should be above being criticized especially since it doesn't behave in a fashion that is above reproach.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Incidentally, I was looking for a discussion of theodicy to refer to and darn if wikipedia's entry wasn't the best I found. They even mention Holocaust Theology. Just thought I'd mention it if people want to look at an external reference and to tell twinky, if he's around, "Wikipedia Rulez!"
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Yes, the money is going to where the people who gave it wanted it to go. That does not mean that it's the best place for the money to be spent or that there are not far better uses for it.
I doubt you can take a single dollar and put it toward a single cause and reach universal agreement that there isn't a better place for that money to go.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
quote:I don't see why religion should be above being criticized especially since it doesn't behave in a fashion that is above reproach.
Good point dean. The only person whose reproach theoretically matters to me would be God. If I feel like we are pleasing him, then I shouldn't be too worried about what the detractors think.
Is there a term yet for comparing your own point to Abraham Lincoln? I was going to say "Even Abraham Lincoln had his detractors" He still has a few. Though I think they are real weasel-gnats. Anyway, I'm sure God is flattered by the comparison Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
There is a section of the user agreement you accepted to not bash other people's religions. In other words, religion is a special area because you agreed that it would be.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Is there a term yet for comparing your own point to Abraham Lincoln?
I think that is "Trisha's Law".
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:There is a section of the user agreement you accepted to not bash other people's religions.
No there isn't. There's a section that says that attacking someone else's religious beliefs is not allowed, but there's nothing that says you can't say that there are problems with a religion.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
We're halfway down the next page ... now King of Men will never find the gigantic-arse post I wrote Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Its a conspiracy, Geoff. Kat, dean, and Squicky have allied to keep him from noticing it .
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I had been taught that the reformationist break was over indulgences and the related issue of faith vs. works.
Anyway, I know our church winds up spending a lot more money than they need to not to satisfy their vanity, but to comply with ridiculous historical restoration guidelines. I'm sure this wasn't relevant to the building of St. Peters. They spent as much restoring a congregational chapel near us as it cost them to build a brand new temple of the smaller variety- about $3 mill. I guess they could have torn down the old chapel and put up one of those new ones. I support the general idea of historical restoration in the intangible benefits it gives to a community. But in order for a building to satisfy them and the modern earthquake/fire codes gets very expensive.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ok, ok. It's just barely conceivable that I gave my inner snark a freer rein than was really 100% optimal. I apologise. Once more, with objectivity. The purpose being to show why I think churches are bad at the list of good things you mentioned.
Spiritual enlightenment
I very much doubt you can define this so as to make it measurable; hence I do not think you are particulary justified in claiming churches do it well. How do you know? And if you're just using it in the usual meaning of 'gaining knowledge of truth', why then I stand by my statement that churches do this very badly, since they teach untrue things.
quote:For what greater purpose are individual human beings ever going to choose a necessary sacrifice over an immediate gain?
How about the second world war? You can hardly claim that all those who fought in that were religious, particularly in the self-examining sense you seem to be speaking of here. I think there are few 20-year-olds with that kind of self-insight, religious or none. Then, how about going to college? That's an immediate monetary sacrifice for a long-term gain. Or perhaps you were referring to sex? I grant you that the way America does this is not the healthiest, but heathen Norway has considerably fewer teen pregnancies, as I recall, and certainly fewer STDs.
Community building
I do not see where a religious community is to be preferred over your average football club. While churches are perhaps no worse than other organising principles, they are no better, either. Hence this cannot be counted as a positive good in favour of churches.
Subjective self-understanding and growth
How can you judge the subjective self-understanding of anyone but yourself? And hence, how can you claim faith promotes this? As for growth, I stand by my 'imaginary friend' comment. How is it growth to rely on forces outside not only the self, but all of humanity? Even assuming the existence of a god, worship does not seem particularly designed to aid human growth, with the possible exception of the IPU (BBHHH).
Moral agreement and moral teaching
Right, let me try that without the inflammatory rhetoric. To the extent that churches teach morals I agree with, said morals were invented by atheists or at most deists, to wit, the Greek philosophers. (Also separately by Confucius and the Buddha, but neither were very religious as we understand the concept in the West.) To the extent that morals I abhor are taught today, they are almost exclusively taught by churches. So I very much disagree that churches do a good job of moral teaching.
As for agreement, I do not consider this a good thing; morals should be probed for value like any other concept. If you believe something is good because the church says so, you are not being moral.
The propagation of culture
Which culture are we speaking of, here? I'll grant you monasteries as repositories of knowledge during the Dark Ages, but in all honesty, I think we would have done just as well without the COuncil of Nicea, or even Aristotle. (Who wasn't preserved by monasteries anyway, but by reasonably secular Arabic scholars.) Culture as theatre, music, and literature? All have been opposed or even suppressed by churches at one time or another, and many sects remain opposed to secular literature. Culture in the broader sense of science and knowledge? Libraries do a much better job, and aren't prone to suppressing knowledge they disagree with, like heliocentric thought, anaesthetics for childbirth, and evolution. Culture as national identity? Only to the extent that they betray their own ideal of the brotherhood of all men. Have I missed any senses of the word culture?
quote:The fact that you apparently only recognize or value the kind of intelligence that is measured by aptitude tests is strange and telling ...
I don't see how you get this from "can't watch them solve problems." When talking to someone, you can see the mental process by which they arrive at their solution, and even be part of that process. The ability to do that is extremely strongly reduced when discussing a problem over a message board.
quote:I mean, you've seen Hatrackers solve problems every second you've been here — but they've all been social, political, and philosophical problems, which apparently ... don't count?
I disagree. I've seen Hatrackers give their opinions on problems of various kinds. I have yet to see anyone convinced by an argument here. I conclude that, if problems are being solved, they're not being solved very convincingly. (Including by myself, obviously.) Or perhaps you were referring to the personal problems that are occasionally brought up? Again, not having the opportunity to see either the thought process or the effect of the solution chosen, I cannot use this to judge intelligence. It is for precisely such reasons I disclaimed my ability to judge Hatrackers' intelligence, and instead pointed to grades and the studies I linked as a reasonably objective backup to my subjective impression.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I am uncomfortable with singling out the Catholic church, especially there are many faithful Catholics on Hatrack. I am surprised you are not.
kat, you always go for this offended victimology silliness. It's very annoying. Squicky isn't 'bashing', he's making a point about religion using a particular religion as an example, which is perfectly o.k., just as it is perfectly o.k. to respectfully point out problems with any other group and back up what you are saying with examples. In a discussion about the usefulness of 'religion', it's kind of impossible for the side that doesn't value religion very much to not use examples using a particular religion.
[ June 21, 2005, 09:50 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: God has ignored my prayers a thousand times.
No He hasn't.
He just said, "No."
(Sorry to pick on your post, Katie, but it was the succinctest. )
Posted by Fishtail (Member # 3900) on :
quote:Community building
I do not see where a religious community is to be preferred over your average football club. While churches are perhaps no worse than other organising principles, they are no better, either. Hence this cannot be counted as a positive good in favour of churches.
Well, by this reasoning, if it ain't a good, it ain't a bad, either. So you can't use it as a knock against religion, either.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
No, that's what I'm conceding. The point is, Puppy is trying to say that the good outweighs the bad. The only good I'm seeing, is done just as well by other organisations, which don't have the bad. So as a defense for religion, this fails.
Posted by Fishtail (Member # 3900) on :
Not everybody can play football, either
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
That's what fencing is for. Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
While not an indictment against religion in general, here is an interesting article (and close to the home of our dear host and hostess) that points out why a separation of church and state is not such a bad thing:
Why swear on a Bible and not a Quran? As an agnostic with no particular spiritual bent at this time, why is my oath on the Bible (that I enjoy for its historical perspective and clever wordplay) any more worthy than an oath on, oh, the book "A People's History of the United States" (which I enjoy for its historical perspective and clever wordplay).
One thing I think this thread is mixing is the terms "Religion" and "Spirituality." The two can be fairly exclusive as you can easily have one without the other. One wouldn't expect that but to not see that it is in fact the case is missing a big piece of the puzzle in this discussion.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The Federal Rules of Evidence hava much better rule on oath/affirmation:
quote:Rule 603. Oath or Affirmation
Before testifying, every witness shall be required to declare that the witness will testify truthfully, by oath or affirmation administered in a form calculated to awaken the witness' conscience and impress the witness' mind with the duty to do so.
The bolded part is the part I think is best. This was adopted specifically to make it clear that atheists are not prevented from testifying due to inability to meaningfully take the oath.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Rivka:
No offense, but duh.
Squicky: Your comments do not denote respect for other's beliefs.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I think I've said it before : There is no obligation to respect beliefs that are patently silly; or perhaps you respect the Aztec religion for its high-minded attempt to keep the universe running? There is only an obligation to respect the right to have a silly belief.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>I've found prayer much more useful as a source of spiritual guidance than as a source of everyday miracles. I do believe in miracles, very strongly, but they are very rare, and I have little to no expectation that I will be the recipient of one. It's not a lack of faith, it's just a realistic extrapolation from the evidence I've seen. So I don't expect God to make my life easier. I only ask Him to help me learn from it.<<
Ratty Puppy: You made me think of why I dislike the plaque on our bishop's desk: 'Expect the miracle.'
And also, this:
quote: Helaman 10:5: I will make thee mighty in word and in deed, in faith and in works; yea, even that all things shall be done unto thee according to thy word, for thou shalt not ask that which is contrary to my will.
Thanks, Puppy Rat!
kat- Was that snarky to Rivka? You be careful. . . you'll awaken my apathy and I'll get. . .(shudder). . . blasé.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:There is no obligation to respect beliefs that are patently silly
There is if you signed the user agreement.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
It's not the belief. It's the believers.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
"No one could believe this unless they are delusional or a liar" isn't respect.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Why should I respect someone who gives me no reason to do so? The respect of others is not a right, but a privilege to be earned; if you want respect, behave in a manner that inspires it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
If you agree to post here, you agree to respect other people and their beliefs. You have already promised to.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
KoM, are you saying that anyone who is religious automatically gives you no reason to respect them? That no respect is due the religious from you?
Do you automatically treat people with no respect until they give you reason to treat them with respect?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
No, kat, there is a difference between "not attacking others' beliefs" and "respecting others' beliefs".
Bev, now I think about it, that's not the way I usually act. Let me instead say that respect is a privilege granted by default, but easy to lose. Being silly is a good way to do so.
And I'm sorry, but no amount of respect for the worshippers of the Holy Shovel of Sacred Earth-Moving is going to keep me from calling it a damn spade.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You do have to treat people with respect. Calling it a spade is fine. Calling people who believe in the spade idiots is not.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
But you believe that all the religious believe in silly things, right? So if in your mind all religious are automatically being silly, do you automatically lose respect for them?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
You guys are lucky Geoff is here to make the rest of the Mormons look good, like there's someone capable of having a debate without succumbing to the vapors or just mounting flaccid little one-liners as a response.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*shrug* You pick your audiences.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
SS: I think beverly's efforts are genuine.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>You guys are lucky Geoff is here to make the rest of the Mormons look good
I think I'm fairly attractive even without Geoff.
:flexes:
Oh, yeah, baby. :kisses biceps:
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I lack Geoff's patience to deal with King of Men's constant bigotry, prejudice, intolerance, and insults.
All he has basically said is that, yes, I don't respect your stupid beliefs because they're stupid.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Rivka:
No offense, but duh.
*amused* Ok, sounds like you agree, neh? Except to me, the two statements are oceans apart. Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Humans have an innate desire for fair play (at least, to be on the receiving end of fair play), so it is very hard for people to stand there and take crap from King of Men without screaming at him His attitude is unfairly contemptuous of other people, and it can get pretty intolerable.
But then again, he seems to thrive on his own indignation at the reactions he gets from people. I'm sure he thinks he looks like some kind of champion for a worthy cause, battling the nasty forces of ignorance, and doesn't realize that the way he argues just makes him look closed-minded and immature.
So if I react by screaming at him, all that does is feed his ego. Hardly productive. If I get sick of him, I'll just ignore him for a while. For now, I deal with him the way I plan to deal with my own children one day — talking and keeping a level head, no matter how much he screams and hits Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
The words of a wise, wise man. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Yes, bev, that's what I'm saying.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So you're not a tolerant person. News-flash!
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, actually, I am. I tolerate the existence of people with silly beliefs; I just don't approve, and make no bones about it. Tolerance, as our esteemed host has pointed out in at least one of his essays, does not mean you have to praise the behaviour in question; you just have to find some accommodation both parties can live with.
More to the point, tolerance means to endure without approval or enjoyment. We tolerate bad living conditions because we can afford no better. We tolerate a certain level of pollution because we need the industrial products. We tolerate diseases to the extent that they cannot be cured. In at least one case on these boards, we tolerate homosexuals because we haven't the power to imprison them. And we tolerate different religions because we've tried eradicating them, and it's seriously nasty.
If you approve of a behaviour, you have no need to tolerate it. Tolerance means living with those who annoy you; there is no obligation to be respectful.
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
quote: Tolerance means living with those who annoy you; there is no obligation to be respectful.
If everyone here annoys you, why not just leave?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:Tolerance means living with those who annoy you; there is no obligation to be respectful.
If you're actively fighting something and trying to cause hurt feelings for people who pursue it, it's very hard to convincingly say that you're tolerating it.
And yes, it cuts both ways. I'd say the same about the many opponents of gay marriage, for instance. Though you can definitely draw a boundary between opposing something on legal or other legitimate grounds, versus simply being mean and intolerant on a personal level.
That may be the distinction you're missing, KoM. I have no problem with you opposing religious influences in public life. I oppose many of them myself. (Prayer in school, God in the pledge of alliegiance ... what's the point?) But the fact that you frame your positions in personally-insulting language calculated to make people feel small, stupid, or looked-down-upon ... well, that makes you QUITE intolerant, to say the least.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Tolerance, as our esteemed host has pointed out in at least one of his essays, does not mean you have to praise the behaviour in question; you just have to find some accommodation both parties can live with.
Your 'accomodation' seems to be calling theists idiotic jackasses every chance you get, King of Men, and puffing out your intellectual chest at the same time. That's not just 'not praising' behavior you disagree with, that's going out of your way to insult and belittle the people who disagree with you, constantly.
That's not tolerance, unless you dumb down the word to mean simply breathing next to someone you don't like.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:And we tolerate different religions because we've tried eradicating them, and it's seriously nasty.
This is not the only reason we tolerate different religions.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Tolerance means living with those who annoy you; there is no obligation to be respectful."
Actually, KoM, you accepted such an obligation when you signed the user agreement for this site. If you want to post, you are obliged to be respectful.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote: That's not tolerance, unless you dumb down the word to mean simply breathing next to someone you don't like.
Welcome to the United States of America, then.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
KoM, You go far beyond the limits of the user's agreement. The Mods would be well within their rights according to that contract to sanction or even ban you. I very much doubt they'd get any argument if they decided to do so.
But that's almost irrelevant. What may be of more interest to you is how remarkably ineffective your arguing is. Your style is often puerile and your foundations seem to almost invariably boil down to "I think religious people are stupid."
This is a poor base to build and argument on, not just because of it's essentially subjective and untransferable nature, but also because it's objectively untenable. There are plenty of extremely intelligent religious people. There are plenty of relatively unitelligent and foolish atheists. And in the realm of values, besides being possessed in copious amount by both sides, intelligence is by no means of primary importance.
Likewise, you tend to greatly oversimplify the complexities of religion. Unless you can address this issue in depth, it is trivialy easy to dismiss your arguments.
I very strongly doubt anyone here has been swayed by your arguments. I know that I, one of the posters most critical of religion, find them mainly annoying and often embarrassing.
Unless your goal is to play to an audience of one and congratulate yourself on how much superior you are to other people, I don't think that you are acheiving it.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
*wipes tears* That's my favorite suggestions, hands down.
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
um, one of my students took the one that is meant to be reminiscent of, neh?
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)