It seems the operation in Afghanistan is heading towards utter operational failure on all points.
-Setting up democracy? Failed, Karzai is corrupt, and the elections fraudulent.
-Restoring government control of Afghanistan? Failed. Taliban control has increased from 54% to 80% of the country.
-Making Afghanistan more secular? Failed. Many promises for woman's rights appear to have been revoked.
*clap clap clap*
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Put down that goalpost, please. The objective of attacking Afghanistan was to prevent it from being used as a military sanctuary and base for terrorist attacks on the West. Looks good to me.
The democracy and women's rights is only a goal because Americans (and now, apparently, Canadians) can't allow themselves to just plain get into a war when they're attacked and damn well win it, no, they have to reform the other guy. To take your points in order:
* What do we care whether Afghanistan is a democracy? It's been a tribal hellhole since the days of Alexander the Great; let 'em stew in their hill forts if they like it so much. * What do we care whether the warlord controlling Kabul also controls the rest of the country? Nobody has united the tribes since, well, basically never. * What do we care whether Afghanistan is secular and has women's rights? That's a standard we didn't even impose on Japan in 1945, otherwise as complete a victory as the world has ever seen.
At this point, I think the correct strategy for the West is to get out and let the Afghans fight it out, sending perhaps a bit of military aid to the Kabul regime. Let it be known that if whatever bunch of thugs wins the civil war tries to harbour terrorists again, they'll be thrown out and have it all to do over again. Otherwise, what do the internal affairs of Afghanistan matter to us? What are we, liberal democracies or a world-wide empire? If the former, we should leave people alone when they do not attack us; if the latter, it would pay us to get good at it and extract some actual tribute.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I think its because A) the United States wants to maintain a military presence there to "flank" Iran and hold a presence in Central Asia, a region thats increasingly "switching" back to Russian-Chinese sphere of influence. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization for example.
B) I think part of it is that they wanna make an oil pipeline there that won't happen if the region isn't stable.
C) If Afghanistan remains unstable then that will spread to other nations like Pakistan. And will make a good nesting ground for terrorists like the back of your fridge is for terrorists.
The overarching goal is regional stability.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
"The United States" wants nothing. It is possible that powerful people within the United States desire a military presence in Central Asia; but to demonstrate that such a desire is important in what's going on right now, you must demonstrate some path from the minds of politicians or generals to operational orders written on paper. Same for the pipeline.
As for instability: When the left opposed Vietnam, domino theory was a ridiculous slippery-slope argument. What changed? Why should the instability of Afghanistan, which has never in history been united as a state, spread to regions like Pakistan with functional armies taking orders from a central government and, notably, far better logistics?
Finally, consider central Africa: Is it stable? If anything, rather less so than Pakistan; neither Pakistan nor Afghanistan regularly see formal, set-piece combat with thousands of troops on a side and actual artillery. Do we care? Not a bit. Why should central Asia be different?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: ... The democracy and women's rights is only a goal because Americans (and now, apparently, Canadians) can't allow themselves to just plain get into a war when they're attacked and damn well win it, no, they have to reform the other guy.
Actually, it has often been noted that if we really did totally refuse to contribute to the Iraq War or if we refused to participate in Afghanistan that there would be political and economic consequences both directly and indirectly from the US.
It is preventing these consequences that is our* primary goal for entering this war and not any arrogant belief that our meager contribution could really make much of a difference in "winning." The democracy and women's rights are just public rationales and cover.
* "Our" as in senior Canadian government and military officials rather than the general population which has been against both wars for quite some time
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: "The United States" wants nothing. It is possible that powerful people within the United States desire a military presence in Central Asia; but to demonstrate that such a desire is important in what's going on right now, you must demonstrate some path from the minds of politicians or generals to operational orders written on paper. Same for the pipeline.
As for instability: When the left opposed Vietnam, domino theory was a ridiculous slippery-slope argument. What changed? Why should the instability of Afghanistan, which has never in history been united as a state, spread to regions like Pakistan with functional armies taking orders from a central government and, notably, far better logistics?
Finally, consider central Africa: Is it stable? If anything, rather less so than Pakistan; neither Pakistan nor Afghanistan regularly see formal, set-piece combat with thousands of troops on a side and actual artillery. Do we care? Not a bit. Why should central Asia be different?
From the perspective of realism it is unnecessary to consider individual actors in International Relations, States are the primary actors not Individuals. From the perspective of realist rational self interest the goal of the United States government is to make the region more stable as the unstable Afghanistan is showing evidence to be contributing to Pakistan's current instability and since as a nation Pakistan is armed with nuclear weapons any one of these falling into the hands of terrorists when it was officially stated that the chance of terrorists infiltrating a nuclear bomb into the United States if seriously attempted is upwards of 90% probability of success ergo preventing this is in the USA's rational best interests along with the possibility to trying to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a further nesting ground for terrorists, and would be conductive to American goals to remaining as an influencial presence in Central Asia before China and Russia manage to block ALL American influence in the region.
However to quibble back in the 70's before the USSR intervened in Afghanistan while still tribal the Central Government at least had some kind of nominal control over most of the country and was stable and held a significantly better place in the UN development index even when hostilities first began and then made MUCH worse by US meddling in Afghanistan to provoke a Soviet response.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Funny how we choose what is culture and none of our business and what needs attention due to basic human rights. The world rallied behind ending apartheid in South Africa and at least there they were segregated on a large scale. The treatment of women in the middle east is akin to that of a slave and/or prisoner with no rights whatsoever. I suppose in the minds of some, religious freedom outweighs individual freedom. Or more concisely, the religious freedom of men outweighs the individual freedom of women. In reality there is no religious freedom in those countries so I fail to understand how anyone can sit on the other side of the world and defend their actions on that basis.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:From the perspective of realism it is unnecessary to consider individual actors in International Relations, States are the primary actors not Individuals.
Yes; this is precisely why realism is a model, not the reality, and therefore has limited usefulness. Before troops move, Obama (among others) has to give orders; it is reasonable to consider "What does Obama believe is the interest of the United States", but it is not reasonable to believe that there exists some platonic-ideal Interest Of The USA which Obama can access and take his policy from. The rationale you give is precisely that; it was not handed down on stone tablets by the God Of Realism on Mount Sinai, and Obama may or may not believe it. (And as for China and Russia blocking American influence from the region, oh teh noes, what a disaster. Afghanistan produces nothing except sheep and poppies; no empire has ever wanted it for anything but a buffer zone against another empire or for stopping raids from the hills hitting actually valuable areas.)
There are plenty of unstable regions in the world where the US does not find it necessary to intervene "for stability." Pakistan's nukes are a thin excuse; nation states willing to use ruthless means - which Pakistan certainly is - do not become "unstable" because of a few thousand hill fighters with AK-47s. Look what happened to the Swat valley (I can never see that name without going "Who, or why, or where, or what...") when the Pakistani army moved in: Bang, no more Taliban. It looks to me like they just wanted to suck them into a place where they could be pinned down and fought.
At this point, I think the Western presence in Afghanistan can be explained much more parsimoniously than a desire for regional stability in a worthless region that hasn't been stable at any time through history, and which the civilised world has done quite well without. Plain institutional inertia looks quite likely to me; people having more-important domestic crises to focus on, like healthcare reform, and not wanting to spend political capital on looking like they withdrew without some sort of Victory; politicians getting caught by their own propaganda, and finding themselves unable to retreat without having Established Democracy.
quote:had some kind of nominal control over most of the country
And so does Karzai. I think you'll find that there are few places Karzai can't send a column of tanks, if he so chooses. That's not the same as saying he can extract taxes or keep order. I think you'll find that neither did the pre-1979 government. In fact, that's why the Soviets invaded in the first place.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Or more concisely, the religious freedom of men outweighs the individual freedom of women. In reality there is no religious freedom in those countries so I fail to understand how anyone can sit on the other side of the world and defend their actions on that basis.
If this is directed at me, it misses the mark. It's quite clear that Afghanistan, if allowed to go its own way, would be a cesspool, especially for women. Its people would be much better off with freedom from religion, as indeed would the US. But when you consider this sort of thing, you have to ask yourself, are you willing to send your countrymen to fight and die for whatever Good Cause you identified? And my answer is, no, I do not care what happens to Afghani women so much that I'll order deaths to prevent it. Let the Afghanis set their own house in order - whatever order the majority of them want and can enforce. So they do not shoot at me and mine, what business have I with that? If I wanted force used on the internal affairs of nations, I would much rather shoot all the theists in America, whose idiocy directly affects me.
I'll also note that, if you really wanted to help women in foreign lands, how about Central Africa where there are armies actively using rape as a weapon? Being forced to wear a burkha is bad, but women in Afghanistan at least do not walk in fear of rape every day of their lives. (Yes, I know it happens and the consequences are fantastically unjust; but it's not an everyday occurrence.)
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Funny how we choose what is culture and none of our business and what needs attention due to basic human rights. The world rallied behind ending apartheid in South Africa and at least there they were segregated on a large scale. The treatment of women in the middle east is akin to that of a slave and/or prisoner with no rights whatsoever. I suppose in the minds of some, religious freedom outweighs individual freedom. Or more concisely, the religious freedom of men outweighs the individual freedom of women. In reality there is no religious freedom in those countries so I fail to understand how anyone can sit on the other side of the world and defend their actions on that basis.
I think this is an interesting point. In a simpler world I would be in favor of sanctioning countries which are demonstrably misogynistic (for religious reasons, or otherwise). Unfortunately, too many strategic allies are offenders, making it pretty much politically impossible.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Good points, especially in regards to Africa. Africa is proof that any high ground reason the modern world has for intervening in a region is a bogus lie. The world will sit back and let genocide occur in Africa...they have nothing to offer our economies.
I do believe something should be done about Islamic terrorists on a national scale. Muslim populations are growing and expanding at a much higher rate than western nations, often within western nations. America is headed towards becoming a Hispanic nation and much of Europe is headed towards becoming a Muslim nation. Modern, free Muslim nations do not have the level of extremism found in the those lacking modernity under Sharia Law. In the long run, France will resemble Iran more than we want to admit.
Your freedom "from" religion comment could be applied in many areas. You may be an athiest but I would guess there are things in your life that give you meaning and purpose. I'm a Christian and I would like freedom from environmentalist wackos whose god is the Earth and slimy socialites whose god is the dollar. The "freedom from" mindset is intolerance. Terrorists want freedom from the infidel. We should have freedom from intolerance, intolerant people and intolerant religions.
[ September 18, 2009, 08:33 PM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Oh dear.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Your freedom "from" religion comment could be applied in many areas. You may be an athiest but I would guess there are things in your life that give you meaning and purpose. I'm a Christian and I would like freedom from environmentalist wackos whose god is the Earth and slimy socialites whose god is the dollar. The "freedom from" mindset is intolerance. Terrorists want freedom from the infidel. We should have freedom from intolerance, intolerant people and intolerant religions.
well said. i was going to reply with something similar. you saved me the time.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: If I wanted force used on the internal affairs of nations, I would much rather shoot all the theists in America, whose idiocy directly affects me.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Your freedom "from" religion comment could be applied in many areas. You may be an athiest but I would guess there are things in your life that give you meaning and purpose. I'm a Christian and I would like freedom from environmentalist wackos whose god is the Earth and slimy socialites whose god is the dollar. The "freedom from" mindset is intolerance. Terrorists want freedom from the infidel. We should have freedom from intolerance, intolerant people and intolerant religions.
This is like "hi, I'm a mac" "and I'm a pc!" but its malanthrop vs. a guy who no jokes seriously dreams about how cool it would be if he could get away with murdering every theist in America
I'll get the popcorn
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Africa is proof that any high ground reason the modern world has for intervening in a region is a bogus lie.
The truth?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:From malanthrop: In the long run, France will resemble Iran more than we want to admit.
I highly doubt that.
France inches closer to civil war on a daily basis. Granted, historically, it's really their own fault. If they didn't want to have a problem with north African Muslim immigrants, they never should have made that entire region into colonial vassals that they imported to fight their wars but couldn't quite send home. By and large, immigration of Muslims into France occurs from places like Algeria, and they head into the slums outside of places like Paris. There's a specific name for the slums but I can't remember what it's called. Many of the riots that we saw in Paris either last year or the year before, I can't remember when it was, was from a mass of largely Muslim, unemployed youth.
There are a lot of questions inherent in that situation though. Why are Muslims disproportionately relegated to lower class status, pushed to the outskirts of major cities, and largely forced to do menial labor because of a lack of access to higher economic echelons? A lot of it is racism. Europe can cry foul against us all they want for being a racist nation, and we certainly have our own demons and crosses to bear, but the rampant, vicious racism that exists in places like France (and it's hardly limited to France) is one of the most under reported social ills of Europe.
But as for the long term? Have you LOOKED at France's laws regarding religious expression? This is the country that outlawed the hijab in schools. Secularism in public life is almost by itself a French religion. From the country that went through the French Revolution and the Paris Commune riots among many, many other problems, France will go through a civil war in which every Muslim in the country will be lit on fire before France submits to Iranian style theocracy. It's antithetical to French nature, and all jokes aside regarding the efficacy of the French military, I put a lot more stock in the snooty intransigence of the French people; they'll never allow something like that to happen, even if it happens slowly over decades. Eventually there will come a reckoning.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: Europe can cry foul against us all they want for being a racist nation, and we certainly have our own demons and crosses to bear, but the rampant, vicious racism that exists in places like France (and it's hardly limited to France) is one of the most under reported social ills of Europe.
Yeah, it is an interesting side effect of 'racial pressure' — Many americans do do a lot of caterwauling about hispanic ingress, but there's a lot of space and a lot of tasks and plenty of room; in a more crowded area like France that's logistically pressed flat up against an even more dramatically underprivileged region of the world like Africa, that bleeds in a large amount of people who are so dramatically alien to the intransigent French (very poor muslim black people from legitimately culturally backwards regions) and who don't have the same space for inclusion that the united states has, and you get marked discrimination on racial, socioeconomic, language, and cultural lines. It is a brutal combination.
The 'pressure' effect is what occurs when the nominal french population feels like their country is being saturated to the point of the loss of what makes france france (this is similar to the grousing about reconquista that comes from american whites) and it usually transforms into large degrees of defensive cultural and political xenophobia.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Your freedom "from" religion comment could be applied in many areas. You may be an athiest but I would guess there are things in your life that give you meaning and purpose. I'm a Christian and I would like freedom from environmentalist wackos whose god is the Earth and slimy socialites whose god is the dollar. The "freedom from" mindset is intolerance. Terrorists want freedom from the infidel. We should have freedom from intolerance, intolerant people and intolerant religions.
well said. i was going to reply with something similar. you saved me the time.
Wow, a new member whose first post is to agree with malanthrop, and who has no personal information in their profile. This has certainly never happened before.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: Wow, a new member whose first post is to agree with malanthrop, and who has no personal information in their profile. This has certainly never happened before.
certainly never..
anyway, ive been reading the hatrack forum on and off for about 6 years. sometimes i get a name and contribute a little then lose interest and forget my username etc. its possible i might stick around this time but hatrack is often boring and stagnate (as has been stated in a different thread). and ive learned to pick my fights carefully so dont expect me to post often.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote: Europe can cry foul against us all they want for being a racist nation, and we certainly have our own demons and crosses to bear, but the rampant, vicious racism that exists in places like France (and it's hardly limited to France) is one of the most under reported social ills of Europe.
Yeah, it is an interesting side effect of 'racial pressure' — Many americans do do a lot of caterwauling about hispanic ingress, but there's a lot of space and a lot of tasks and plenty of room; in a more crowded area like France that's logistically pressed flat up against an even more dramatically underprivileged region of the world like Africa, that bleeds in a large amount of people who are so dramatically alien to the intransigent French (very poor muslim black people from legitimately culturally backwards regions) and who don't have the same space for inclusion that the united states has, and you get marked discrimination on racial, socioeconomic, language, and cultural lines. It is a brutal combination.
The 'pressure' effect is what occurs when the nominal french population feels like their country is being saturated to the point of the loss of what makes france france (this is similar to the grousing about reconquista that comes from american whites) and it usually transforms into large degrees of defensive cultural and political xenophobia.
I'm not sure if I'm so willing to give them a geographic break. France, by area, is the largest country in Western Europe, yet their population (about 64 million) is only a tad higher than Great Britain's (about 61 million), and historically France actually came in a fair bit lower than Britain, which surprised me when I first saw it. France, for both immigration and natural birth rate reasons, is in a ten year population boom phase. Anyway, Great Britain is about 38% the size of France, and I would say that few of Britain's racial problems have to do with geography, it has to do with their history, with colonialism, and immigration. They've gotten a lot better at it because they've had to deal with it in an in your face fashion for longer than the French have (and here is where being a scrunchy island nation DOES matter), and America for that matter has been dealing with racial issues since shortly after the Mayflower landed, and we STILL haven't gotten it down yet, but I think we're a lot further along, as a nation, than France is.
Their problem is a monolithic cultural identity. The fact that France is as big as it is has allowed them to shunt a lot of the immigration influx (from Eastern Europe as well, let's not forget the role EU membership has played in this) into metropolitan slums outside the city centers (ironically, this is the inverse of America's inner-city problem). America has no such monolithic identity, or rather, our problem is probably that we have a half dozen different groups who think their identity is America's monolithic identity. Insert your favorite crazed demographic here. But France has very little practical experience with multiculturalism, and instead of an honest attempt at it, they're doing their absolute best to preserve what they perceive to be a long standing, and valuable, French culture.
Basically I agree with you (as I've echoed much of what you've said), I just don't think space matters so much when they are more examples of more diverse smaller nations with larger populations (or at least, higher population densities) that get along with their multicultural citizen neighbors far better than the French do. Either immigrants will have to adapt, the French will have to change, or France will forever be a nation of two worlds. I think the second one is extremely unlikely, and the third, historically, is untenable. Lincoln agrees.
At the end of the day though, to readdress malanthrop's point. Despite the influx of Muslims, France is still only 4% Muslim, and I think the spigot is going to be turned off far before they reach big enough numbers to do the type of damage that's been suggested by many.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Cap - don't take it personally, this is at least the 4th time someone who has agreed with me was accused of being me under a different name. I was accused of being someone else when I decided to jump in. Certainly, there has been an actual problem of people misrepresenting themselves in that manner in the past.
Sam - thank you for pointing out that the poster with the most religious sounding name has an axe to grind against theism....I haven't been around long enough to catch the irony.
Back to the point..extremism is the problem. I'll admit that historically many atrocities have been committed in the name of religion. They continue to be committed, IE 911, crusades, witch trials, etc. I submit that it isn't the religion but the perversion of the religion due to the extremism of man. Just as many atrocities have been committed in the name of humanism, ie communism and socialism. In Islam, the Koran specifically discusses not harming the people of "The Book"; the book being the bible. Islam IS a religion of peace but one percent of a billion people makes a lot of terrorists. Bin Laden is the same as Jim Jones. Religion itself is not bad and communism is the perfect government for a perfect people; unfortunately people aren't perfect. You never hear of a Hindu bombing a McDonald's for serving beef and as a result, no one has issue with Hinduism. There are committed athiest environmentalists burning car lots and suburban homes but that doesn't make me distrust people who care about the environment. Extremism is extremism, irregardless the belief system or religion that spawned it. If no one on the planet believed in God, you would still have extremists acting on their beliefs.
I'm a Libertarian Christian...I believe everyone should do and believe whatever they want so long as it doesn't impede the rights of another to do the same.
[ September 19, 2009, 01:31 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'll maybe be the only person to say that I don't think the crusades were a total atrocity. I think a lot of the side trips, like crusades that went astray into pillaging Jewish towns of their life and wealth until forced back on track by either lords or local bishops were absolute atrocities, and despite the fact that some of the point of the crusades were to turn a warring people's aggression on the Muslims rather than inward on themselves...at the end of the day, Europe was a continent under siege. They were working their way north from Spain and west across Anatolia with the goal of conquering Europe. No matter how civil SOME of them may have seemed in the glorification of the period (and really, other than Salah ad-Din, I'm not even sure who comes out looking rosy even after glorification) in comparison with those wicked Christians (actually, some of THEM, like Louis IX, were canonized for their efforts), they were still the aggressors, and all the Crusades did was slow them down (well, except the reconquista, which was successful in driving the Moors (blanket term covering several ethnic groups of Muslims) out of Spain).
After the Byzantines fell (well, part of that was the fault of the Crusades anyway, and I'm still not happy about the 4th Crusade. That had an instrumental impact on Europe's long term safety), and Muslims armies started to march across southeast Europe, it could have easily been lights out for Western Europe if not for extreme circumstances. I don't think the Crusades were unjustified, and for the time, I'm not willing to give them a blanket label of being especially cruel or harsh.
[ September 19, 2009, 02:45 AM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
You certainly know more about the crusades than I and I wouldn't pretend to know numbers of crusades. All I know about them is what I learned in school...evil Christians on a rampage of convert or die- not unlike the current Sharia Terrorist mindset. We still have Columbus day in America but I think those days are numbered. My daughter told me all the bad things about him she learned in school.
I question my own beliefs at all times because I realize had Germany won WWII, I might be speaking German now and feel joy that they had beat back the evil Jews who controlled the United States. Even still, I wonder how much of what I think I know is reality or propaganda. Propaganda is easy to spot in retrospect, ie Refer Madness - black guys smoking weed and raping white women uncontrollably or "News" clips during movie intermission during WWII about the Japs.....give me a break. Hindsight is 20/20, how clearly does the average person see ABC today? There is story after story of what the government did to people 20 or 30 years ago, but few people think they continue to do it - decade after decade.
History is written by the victors and most people are sheep. If all you know is the great leader was born of immaculate conception from a panda and you are to eat grass, you'll believe it. Is it wrong to point out the lies that other societies believe or is it their culture we should respect?
[ September 19, 2009, 02:59 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think the Crusades get a bad rap, often through a presentist lens that applies 20th or 21st century morality and values to a Medieval world in which many of the philosophies and moral codes we work with today literally hadn't been written yet. The Crusades weren't sold to Europeans as a "convert or die" mission, they were sold to Europeans as a grand war of both liberation, for Christian brothers held in bondage in the Levant, and one of self-preservation, against Muslim hordes knocking on their doors near Constantinople. Despite some disastrous forays into Egypt, most of which were lost due to incompetent leadership despite some utterly amazing opportunities, and the 4th Crusade, in which a crusading army actually specifically defied a papal order and sacked Constantinople, which is all the more tragic considering the people of Constantinople, so used to the city's leadership changing hands with such frequency, but also civility, opened the doors to the invading army only to be pillaged. It would later lead to an easy victory for Muslim conquerors from what should have been the most heavily fortified city on the planet.
In the end though, the Crusades would have far less to do with religion than they would personal indulgences, petty desires for land and lordship, and political infighting and backstabbing that left many disgusted with the entire endeavor. Every noble in Europe with an older brother who had little chance of ever acquiring any sort of realm sold their fortunes, gathered troops and sought their fortune in the Levant, hoping to become lords themselves in far away Christian lands. I don't doubt that many or most of the were devout (though perhaps few so honestly so as Louis IX), but the Crusades are over simplified to the point of misinformation when they're depicted as ravaging hordes of radical Christians converting by the sword.
History isn't always written by the victors. Any historian worth his salt attempts to discern a real truth despite the rosy spin put on it. America "won" the Cold War, but despite the picture often glossed over when dealing with cold war America, a lot of the USSR's criticism's of American society were by and large dead on. Similarly, with something like the Crusades, ultimately the Christians lost, but the events are still chronicled from both sides. It's a lot more cut and dry when the victors kill everyone taller than a sword and sell the women into slavery; you can erase a culture's entire history that way. But we haven't operated that way in a long time. The truth is out there (heh), it's just often buried and hard to find.
For the average person though, the best defense is healthy, informed skepticism. It's not enough just to doubt everything, you have to be able to objectively analyze incoming information for flaws or truths. Americans have a big problem with this, in both the skepticism department, and the informed department.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The Crusades weren't sold to Europeans as a "convert or die" mission, they were sold to Europeans as a grand war of both liberation, for Christian brothers held in bondage in the Levant, and one of self-preservation, against Muslim hordes knocking on their doors near Constantinople.
I think it's the defense part I had trouble feeling too bad about. Seeing the second one peripherally in Eleanor of Aquitaine's biography actually made me pretty sympathetic to the Muslims. Why should some European dude be king of Jerusalem? And if the Prince of Antioch hadn't been cousin to the Queen of France and the King of France owing the church a big apology, would anyone have really cared?
A lot of the nobles didn't want to go or pay for it. Some charismatic monk and their love for their king talked them into it. They didn't know what they were doing, and the Holy Roman Emperor managed to get betrayed by his own brother-in-law after leaving Byzantium and jumped by Turks. The French infantry was abandoned in Greece, nearly died of the plague, and were only saved by Turkish mercy - mercy from the people they came to kill.
The whole affair struck me as self-absorbed politics. After the Turks saved the infantry, I was rooting for the Muslims.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, you're always going to be able to pull specific stories out that make one side look worse than the other. The Turks slaughtered an entire army of peasants that preceded the First Crusade into Asia Minor led by Peter the Hermit, offering them death or conversion to Islam. They also sacked Jerusalem pretty hardcore, and slaughtered thousands of Christians, mostly Christian pilgrims, until realizing they could make more money by at least trying to keep them alive.
At times the whole thing reads like fiction given the politics, the singular heroic figures, the tragedy, the backstabbing, some of the romantic elements that even crop up, and the grand titanic battles. But yes, it was a defense of Europe. Whether or not you were on the Muslim or the Christian side, that doesn't erase the fact that Muslims had spent the previous couple centuries conquering Christian north Africa and turning a thousand churches into mosques, or that they controlled a large part of Christian Spain and had attempted to invade France before they were beaten back by Charles Martel.
At various times, especially the 4th Crusade, I wasn't particularly rooting for the Europeans either, but it was hard not to like some of the leaders, and I was actually sad when reading about how singularly great men's legacies were ruined by those that succeeded them.
Also, a lot of the nobles DID want to go, for purely pious reasons. You get a lot of secondary nobles who sold off their entire estates and basically liquidated everything they owned to pay for the venture. Some of them just wanted territory in the new world, but men like Raymond of Toulouse in the First Crusade was already more powerful than the King of France. He was a little older, and figured if he was going to die some time soon, he wanted to do it in the service of God, so he'd go on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, and if they liberated Jerusalem along the way, so be it. A lot of incredibly wealthy nobles did in fact want to go, and were willing to give up everything they had to do it.
quote:A lot of the nobles didn't want to go or pay for it. Some charismatic monk and their love for their king talked them into it. They didn't know what they were doing, and the Holy Roman Emperor managed to get betrayed by his own brother-in-law after leaving Byzantium and jumped by Turks. The French infantry was abandoned in Greece, nearly died of the plague, and were only saved by Turkish mercy - mercy from the people they came to kill.
Off the top of my head I'm not sure which crusade or crusades, or at least time line, that these events took place in, not without some names or dates to go with it. I'm guessing it's later on, as there wouldn't have been a Prince of Antioch before Bohemond took the city in the First Crusade.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
In the religious-atrocity scales, I'll give the Crusades a pass; first, the Moslems had started it, and second, they weren't any worse than the average secularly motivated war at the time, or not much anyway. The English gave France one hell of a working-over in the Hundred Years' War, and that's with Catholics on both sides. Since it was more or less impossible to take fortified places without spending a year at each one - not very practical in a country with hundreds of stone castles and walled cities - the only reliable method of making the enemy army submit was to burn the countryside and kill the peasants; chevauchee. The object was to starve the enemy into submission by having your army eat the harvest, burn what they couldn't eat, carry off the horses, plows and other productive assets, and preferably kill the peasants who might otherwise have produced some sort of crop in spite of all that. At least any rapes that took place was just incidental, and not an avowed objective of the war as in Kosovo and some parts of Africa.
quote:Your freedom "from" religion comment could be applied in many areas. You may be an athiest but I would guess there are things in your life that give you meaning and purpose.
No, actually, I spend my days in a slough of despond, trying to fill the emptiness with drugs, alcohol, and snark. That has nothing to do with whether we'd be better off if the population of the most industrialised nation in the world didn't believe in lies.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I find meaning in creative pursuits, I also do not require divine intervention to give my life meaning.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Funny how we choose what is culture and none of our business and what needs attention due to basic human rights. The world rallied behind ending apartheid in South Africa and at least there they were segregated on a large scale.
Really? The world rallied behind ending it? How did they do that? Did we invade South Africa? I'm pretty sure the world "rallies" behind ending sexual inequality in Afghanistan in just about the same fashion- the problem is of course something you would never want to acknowledge: that Afghanistan is a complex and unique place where what happened in South Africa (largely on its own) doesn't matter very much. I don't even know why you're wagging your finger at this- we already invaded their country and killed thousands of them in an attempt to establish security in their country, what more are you hoping we do, and what more do you actually think we are capable of doing at this point?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I question my own beliefs at all times because I realize had Germany won WWII, I might be speaking German now and feel joy that they had beat back the evil Jews who controlled the United States. Even still, I wonder how much of what I think I know is reality or propaganda.
Most of what *you* think you know is propaganda. But what I find interesting about this above is that you fully acknowledge a total lack of self-determinism, yet you passive-aggressively scold atheists for lack of purpose or identity. Having arrived at this state of understanding, can we now expect you to not act as if you hold the keys to all human knowledge?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I didn't scold athiests in any way. I said "You may be an athiest but I would guess there are things in your life that give you meaning and purpose". An athiest's life has no less meaning or purpose, they'll find it in the green movement, Gay and Lesbian Alliance Struggles or working long days up the corporate ladder. Questioning one's beliefs is called being open minded and it's the only way to own your beliefs. Believing unquestionably what the state, teachers and even parents told you results sheeple. Human capacity to believe the unbelievable when raised in a state that controls everything is astonishing....the dear leader of North Korea's birth via a panda or a proud Muslim mother strapping a bomb on her child are good examples.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Mal's got a point there, Orincoro. "I would guess" is pretty mild by the standards of religious people attacking the meaning in atheist lives. His guesses at what we do find meaning in are rather more laughable, but "scolding" is not the right term for the post you were responding to.
With that said, mal, have you considered the extent to which a parent controls the information a young child gets? Most children in the West quite literally believe in Santa Claus, because their parents tell them he exists. As they grow older they get contrary information; but when it comes to their parents' gods, that does not happen in the usual course of things because of the extremely strong social norm against criticising religious instruction. (The Internet changes this, obviously, but it's rare for anyone to seek out information contradicting core beliefs; it has to be stumbled across, and that's a slow process.) Atheists who were raised in a religion often describe years upon years of "struggling with faith" and wanting to believe, or dreading telling their parents that they no longer wish to go to church. As brainwashing goes, I doubt North Korea has anything on your average theist parent, although I admit that in the US it's illegal to shoot your child for not believing in your god. (That said, beating them to "drive out the devils" is at least borderline legal, and dropping them from wills or Thanksgiving invitations perfectly so.)
How likely do you think it is that you would be a Christian if you had never encountered the belief before the age of 18? Before you answer, consider the several billion people for whom that is actually true, and what percentage of them then convert. Don't look at the raw numbers, so many tens of thousands of converts yearly; look at the percentage. And then think about the resources Christian churches pour into missionary activity, and what that says about how convincing their story is to adults forming their own opinions. Do you really have a good reason for believing that Jesus rose from the dead, but Odin didn't? (Note that Odin was a historical figure at least as well attested as Jesus, including some archeological evidence of migrations from the Russian steppes to Scania around the right time.)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Incidentally, can we please get the spelling right?
Atheist; from theist, believer in a god, and a, not. Athiest; superlative form of athy, as in athy, athier, athiest. On this forum, probably refers to me. Doesn't have a plural, because THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
There were long stretches of time in my life when I questioned to the point of disbelief and considered myself agnostic. To be honest, my father is not very happy about my choice of faith. I was raised old school Catholic and could never accept certain aspects of that doctrine.
If by "good reason" you are suggesting proof, there in none, hence faith. The US dollar is not backed by gold and it is our "faith" in it that gives it value. I use to argue religion with a believer in Wicca and he couldn't believe how a christian could believe what they do. I thought it was funny he believed he could perform magic.
My initial point was that it is human belief taken to an extreme that has resulted in tyranny throughout history. History is full of tyrannies, some based on religion and others not. It is arguable that the religious leaders who have presided over these periods, were in fact non-believers using the faith to control the masses. Televangelists and Jeremiah Wright have made themselves quite wealthy and do little to help the people. The world is full of scam artists out to manipulate the ignorant and desperate masses for their own gain. Stalin had wonderful humanistic ideals for a perfect society but just as previous popes, was corrupted by power...Castro, Hitler, Enron. Many people look at religion as the common factor in horrible things, when in reality the common factor is corruption of man.
Every two years in America we are able to address the corruption of man at the polling booth. Christians set up a system where all religions could be free and tyrants could be ushered out the door.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:If by "good reason" you are suggesting proof, there is none, hence faith.
But why? Why would you want to believe something on the grounds that "I just do"? I'm not talking about proof in the mathematical sense, just some sort of evidence which you don't reject in other contexts. (That is, your evidence for Jesus should be better than your evidence for Odin, else you should believe or disbelieve both equally.) You would not apply such a procedure to any other facet of your life; what makes religion so special, that you allow yourself to say "I just believe", no justification required?
As for your clash with your father, fine points of doctrine are details. You agree, presumably, on the underlying factual assertions: A god exists, was incarnated as Jesus of Nazareth, proved his divinity by various miracles including rising from the dead, and will resurrect you after your own death.
quote:The US dollar is not backed by gold and it is our "faith" in it that gives it value.
You are mistaken: The US dollar is backed by the ability of the US government to confiscate the wealth of its citizens, or more accurately, by everyone's belief that it has that ability. This is what is meant by the phrase "full faith and credit". As long as the US army (and other coercive institutions) will take orders from the executive, and retain the ability to extract goods by force, the dollar has value. (Although if it ever comes to the point of actual fighting, the dollar won't have anywhere near as much value as it does today.) When people believe the dollar has value, then, they are not engaging in an act of faith, in the religious sense; they have excellent evidence for their belief. Also note that the same is true of gold; gold only has value as long as people believe it can be exchanged for food.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Mutual agreement to a fungible carrier of value isn't faith in the sense of religious faith.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Believers also have evidence..just as people have traded paper for food, people have prayed for a need and had that need answered. There is a long list of things in my life you might attribute to coincidence that have boosted my faith. Strangely I know plenty of atheists that believe in Karma. What sort of balancing force is there to justify this belief? If I were hungry religious institutions would more readily provide help than the US government. While the government may send a bag of grain to a remote land, a missionary will go there to dig a well, build a school and teach them how to farm.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Strangely I know plenty of atheists that believe in Karma. What sort of balancing force is there to justify this belief?
I am not responsible for the silly, unfounded beliefs of other atheists, which are in any case not relevant to the truth of the assertion "Jesus rose from the dead". There have also been atheists who believed in communism. Which, incidentally, had rather more evidence in its favour (when first formulated) than Christianity. To wit, you could point to the exploited workers and exploiting capitalists.
quote:If I were hungry religious institutions would more readily provide help than the US government.
That is utterly irrelevant to the truth of the assertion "Jesus rose from the dead". In discussing what is true, it is really very helpful to stick to the point, namely evidence for or against the assertion. "Churches help people" is just a reverse ad hominem; it tells you nothing about whether the churches in question say true things.
quote:Just as people have traded paper for food, people have prayed for a need and had that need answered. There is a long list of things in my life you might attribute to coincidence that have boosted my faith.
So now it's not about pure faith anymore? Excellent. Please remember this retreat and stick to it; it'll be a rather boring discussion if you're going to equivocate between needing evidence and not needing it.
Let's have a look at your evidence, then. When people pray for things, some of those prayers will be "answered" by plain random chance. Is your success rate any higher than that of non-praying people? As you must well know, there have been many studies of this. You likely know what their result was, too. Consider your Wiccan: When he does "magic", it very likely (if he is an even moderately sophisticated neopagan) takes the form of rituals intended to calm the mind, give self-confidence, or otherwise change his mental state. I would be extremely surprised if it doesn't work, too. Is this evidence in favour of a Goddess who interferes in human affairs upon being invoked? Of course not.
How many people have prayed to be healed of their cancer, and gone down into the dark just the same? How many amputees have prayed for a new leg? When you can show a higher-than-random success rate for healing by prayer, then you can claim it as evidence. Until then, you're just making things up.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
The Bible is a historical account of people from the time. Although the eye witness testimony may be 2000 years old, it is up to the individual to believe that testimony.
Some people believe the Mob killed Kennedy, 911 was an inside job and even jurors may disagree on the believability of one witness. It is a futile argument and I'm not trying to convince you and you will be unable to sway me. What is good about this country is you and I are free to believe what we want. An atheist looking to eliminate religion from society is no different than one religion imposing its will on others. Communist attempt to strip society of all religions, Muslim nations persecuting non muslims and the Spanish inquisition...equivalent in all regards.
You are free to believe we were seeded from aliens or that we arose from amino acid sludge on a tidal flat. Where is the evidence of that? I absolutely believe that evolutionary evidence is undeniable in regards to mutation and reproduction but the initiation of life from non-life has not been replicated in a lab. When I hear scientists discuss the big bang, I am in absolute agreement. Everything in the universe initiated from a single point, everything out of nothing....sounds like the moment of creation to me. In my mind I can reconcile the evolution of man from primates into our current state. If God is infinite, time is not a factor in the process of creation. I don't believe we've only been on the Earth for 3k years and we walked with dinosaurs, etc and I don't handle snakes but those are the examples of the minority of believers so often held out. We could reverse engineer a chocolate chip cookie but that doesn't disprove the existence of the baker. The precision, beauty and order of science and biology only confirms my belief. Science began to unravel the how, not the who.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote: but the initiation of life from non-life has not been replicated in a lab
This actually has been done, in the 1950/60's no less.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Not really Blayne. Creating amino acids in a lab is not the same thing as creating complex self replicating protein chains. As the caveat is almost always stated: "the building blocks of life," which is not life really.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Questioning one's beliefs is called being open minded and it's the only way to own your beliefs.
I understand this sentence in the sense that it is a coherent string of words with known meanings; and it's passable grammatically, though not impressive. However, it is about as meaningless as I think a sentence could possibly be. The only way to "own," as in to "fully represent," your own set of beliefs is to question them? And this is called "being open minded?" Because I'm pretty sure an open minded person doesn't enter a dialogue as a representative of beliefs. I understand that this is a slogan someone has fed you, or more likely a slogan you have yourself garbled into incoherent mush, but whatever does it actually mean to you?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: If by "good reason" you are suggesting proof, there in none, hence faith. The US dollar is not backed by gold and it is our "faith" in it that gives it value.
No, just no. It is value that gives it value. Just as with gold (which I remind you has little inherent value), the dollar represents in a general way, the value of the U.S. economy and the economies of other countries that trade in dollars. This value is based, in the end, on the actual ability to create products and render services which are all real. The fact that dollars are used as quantifiers of that value, rather than pieces of metal with actual uses is irrelevant.
It is not our faith that maintains currency, and more than it is our faith that maintains language. Do I have to have faith that you will understand the meaning of the word "apple" in the same way as I do? The evidence of your understanding will be apparent to me, just as when I give you a dollar, you and I will recognize it as having the same value. All the extant mutual understandings of the entire world are not faith based.
Do you really need someone to explain to you why that is a completely and utterly false analogy? I mean really, it's hackneyed.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:The Bible is a historical account of people from the time. Although the eye witness testimony may be 2000 years old, it is up to the individual to believe that testimony.
But again, there are many other "eye-witness" (the Gospels aren't, in fact, but let that pass for now) testimonies of similar events which you do not believe. Why these ones and not those ones? Jesus of Nazareth, but not Joseph Smith? Saying that it's "up to the individual" is a cop-out; you don't have any reason to believe one over another. And I remind you that you've already given up on pure faith.
quote:What is good about this country is you and I are free to believe what we want. An atheist looking to eliminate religion from society is no different than one religion imposing its will on others.
Except that the atheist is correct. Being free to believe lies is a bug, not a feature.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Being free to believe lies is a bug, not a feature.
*snort* Not when it's absolutely the only sure guard against tyranny. Or rather, a full suite if you will of sure guards against tyranny will absolutely have to include the freedom to believe - and profess belief in - lies.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
It may be a necessary bug. It's still a bug.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Like the Blue Screen of death?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
The world's faith in the dollar has fallen a lot in the last 10 months and the worlds faith in gold has risen even more. You can't print gold.
I'm not here to convince anyone to switch over to my religious beliefs only to express the value of what you refer to as a bug in our society. You can believe what you want and if you have a happy fulfilling life, then I'm glad for you. I'm suppose to be the intolerant right wing racist and I'm arguing with you about acceptance. Ha.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:It may be a necessary bug. It's still a bug.
Yeah, I can't stand those bugs that are necessary to the ideal possible function of a system. Just hate `em!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Mal, pointing out that the dollar has sunk in value does not support your idea that it is faith based. It is value based, and the US economy has lost value.
But I do love that you think your point is made because you can use the word "faith," which in this context has nothing whatever to do with religious faith or deism. Do you also believe that feminists are defeated in detail every time they are forced to use the word: "woman" because it contains the word "man?" It's these kinds of trivialities that make your arguments so laughable.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Mal, pointing out that the dollar has sunk in value does not support your idea that it is faith based. It is value based, and the US economy has lost value.
Religion is value based as well. If you find nothing of worth or use in a religion or in its' community, then stop investing. It's not like you enter a religion turn off all your sense and then say, "OK hit me with it, I've got total faith!"
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
That is exactly what mal is saying: He believes things "just because". You will note that he offered no actual rebuttal to my accusation that he has no reason whatever to take the word of Paul of Tarsus over that of Christian Whitmer; and yet he does. If that's not utter bankruptcy of belief, I don't know what is. But he continues to be bailed out by the corrupt social structure which condones this sort of thing.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
BB, I feel that just because the words "value" and "faith" have meaning in both contexts, you are attempting to establish a false congruence between the concepts. Faith in a dollar and faith in a religious idea are not comparable in any useful way in this discussion, and certainly the understanding and acceptance of one does not lead to the understanding or acceptance of the other. This is somewhat similar to the cases in which religious people quote Jefferson and Plato and Einstein talking about "God," in an attempted appeal to authority, and fail utterly to realize that the God concept being dealt with by those political, philosophical and scientific theorists does not resemble their own conception. Another analogy might help to illustrate my meaning, but I shudder at the thought of you establishing a valence with that concept as well.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I find meaning in creative pursuits, I also do not require divine intervention to give my life meaning.
Unless the ability to find meaning in creative pursuits is an example of something that was given to you through divine intervention.
quote:The US dollar is backed by the ability of the US government to confiscate the wealth of its citizens, or more accurately, by everyone's belief that it has that ability.
For the average person, I think the value they put in a dollar stems from their belief that other people will at some point in the future accept that dollar in exchange for goods and services. They assume there will not be massive inflation or deflation. This belief, not completely provable through evidence, is a sort of faith.
The value of the dollar can go down even if the total "value" of the U.S. economy stays constant, if people stop believing in it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Once again Tres, welcome to the party. "is a sort of faith" does not in any way signify. Inhaling the atmosphere with the belief that there is oxygen in it and not pure methane "an act of faith" for all that it matters. It doesn't justify anything about religion at all.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:I find meaning in creative pursuits, I also do not require divine intervention to give my life meaning.
Unless the ability to find meaning in creative pursuits is an example of something that was given to you through divine intervention.
A lie and a false dichotomy and circular reasoning of no value whatsoever to logical debate.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Why do you think it is a lie and a false dichotomy and circular reasoning of no value whatsoever to logical debate?
quote:Once again Tres, welcome to the party. "is a sort of faith" does not in any way signify. Inhaling the atmosphere with the belief that there is oxygen in it and not pure methane "an act of faith" for all that it matters. It doesn't justify anything about religion at all.
Agreed. The example only justifies something about faith. (And about what makes money valuable.)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Oh ye dogs, can we please avoid feeding the sub-aqueous life forms? Of all things that live under bridges, none is lower than the squamous, weed-encrusted blobs that distort the meanings of words. Where they go, utter giggling insanity must soon follow; there is no SAN check in such a campaign, and the GM who introduces one of these fell beings has lost all interest in playing fair. Honest trolls recoil from their disgusting presence, and wise men flee. Throw it back into the river, do not acknowledge its presence!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Orincoro:
quote:ou are attempting to establish a false congruence between the concepts.
I wasn't trying to, but you are welcome to help me understand why.
quote:Faith in a dollar and faith in a religious idea are not comparable in any useful way in this discussion, and certainly the understanding and acceptance of one does not lead to the understanding or acceptance of the other.
You are welcome to help me understand why.
quote:This is somewhat similar to the cases in which religious people quote Jefferson and Plato and Einstein talking about "God,"
Nobody is doing that, but you are welcome to help me understand why you think that is the case.
quote:Another analogy might help to illustrate my meaning, but I shudder at the thought of you establishing a valence with that concept as well.
When you've decided that I'm not too stupid or intentionally being obtuse you are welcome to help me understand why.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Mutual agreement to a fungible carrier of value isn't faith in the sense of religious faith.
This mostly, albeit in a less provocative fashion.
It is similar to the difference between the scientific use of the word theory as in theory of evolution or theory of gravity versus the common usage of the word which is roughly synonymous to a guess.
Edit to add: (Similar in the sense that there are different things described by a superficially identical word, rather than that the relationship between the words are the same in both cases)
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
How specifically is the concept that "faith" conveys in the religious context different from the more general use? What delineates it?
Often it gets misconstrued as "believing whatever you want" or "believing something that reason says is wrong" which are both pretty far off from how I commonly hear it in religious contexts. It actually seems more comparable to the "faith" you'd have in a friend or family member when they tell you something that seems unlikely, although religious faith presumably is much more compelling.
[ September 21, 2009, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Maybe I'm not being clear.
My assertion is not that there is something special about the use of the word "faith" in the religious sense that separates it from its more general usage. I mean, there very well could be but that discussion is not one that I wish to participate in.
My* assertion is that there is something special about the use of the word "faith" in regards to the value of something like the USD or gold that separates it from its religious usage.
*(not really just "my" assertion at this point)
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
In other words, you're arguing that using faith as though it means the same thing in both cases is equivocation, yes?
You can say you have faith your friend will get here on time.
You can say you have faith in God.
The meanings, while not radically different, are argued to not be quite the same, correct?
As the very dictionary can say, using Miriam Webster online:
" 1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions 2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust 3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>"
Or, to clarify, it can mean multiple things, and you can say religious faith is really a version of the "complete trust" meaning of the word.
However, saying you have faith in the U.S. dollar is not really the same thing as saying you have faith in God.
My dollar bought something yesterday, after all, and is guaranteed by the government, as it says right on the bill where I can read it.
Is God the same? Well, though I'm rather biased by not believing any of them exist, it's more a trust in something like a person than in trusting your dollar will still buy something today as it did yesterday.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Gentlemen, why are you arguing with someone who has repeatedly demonstrated that he does not understand the difference between 1% and 99%? If you can only be 99% certain of something, Tres calls that "faith", and the same thing as believing in something that has a 1% chance of being true. Since, from the statement 1=2, you can prove any statement by valid logic, it follows that Tres cannot have any actual beliefs; for him, all the world is an amorphous sea of non-meaning. This being so, why bother to engage? Only force can penetrate a skull so thick as that; an option which, alas, is not available over the tubes.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I'm trying to point out that an atheist, humanist or religious person can and often do, behave in equally fanatical ways due to their individual belief systems. The subject of importance in their lives may be different but an equally driving force with equally good or bad results. It is understandable that "faith" has a religious implication but I think it is whatever you feel you can count on in life. I have faith in my family and in my god but little faith in the government. An abused child who was raised on government assistance may have little faith in family and much faith in the government. I know many hardworking Christians that are at peace knowing that the lord will provide for their needs. They behave responsibly yet it isn't the IRA or 401k that gives them faith and peace. On the other hand there are people that only have faith in the dollar - believe that God has nothing to do with their life and will not be at peace until their retirement account reaches a certain threshold....(an ever increasing threshold).
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Your post has nothing to do with the question of whether Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead. Why do you believe this?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Why do you think it is a lie and a false dichotomy and circular reasoning of no value whatsoever to logical debate?
quote:Once again Tres, welcome to the party. "is a sort of faith" does not in any way signify. Inhaling the atmosphere with the belief that there is oxygen in it and not pure methane "an act of faith" for all that it matters. It doesn't justify anything about religion at all.
Agreed. The example only justifies something about faith. (And about what makes money valuable.)
No, no, no, no... no. I'm saying that the "faith" you're talking about, from a religious point of view, and the "faith" I'm talking about, which is the belief (based on observation and experience) that things will happen a certain way, even if you yourself cannot enumerate the reasons why it should, are not comparable. They are not related beyond the fact that they both have to do with believing things. The nature of the belief is entirely different, and once again, the fact that a person holds one belief does not validate the other.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: How specifically is the concept that "faith" conveys in the religious context different from the more general use? What delineates it?
Often it gets misconstrued as "believing whatever you want" or "believing something that reason says is wrong" which are both pretty far off from how I commonly hear it in religious contexts. It actually seems more comparable to the "faith" you'd have in a friend or family member when they tell you something that seems unlikely, although religious faith presumably is much more compelling.
Can you give an example of something that would falsify your religious faith?
For example, my "faith" in the value of the dollar would be falsified by, e.g., a massive increase in prices, or merchants refusing to accept dollars etc etc.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
[/QUOTE]The example only justifies something about faith. (And about what makes money valuable.) [/qb]No, no, no, no... no. I'm saying that the "faith" you're talking about, from a religious point of view, and the "faith" I'm talking about, which is the belief (based on observation and experience) that things will happen a certain way, even if you yourself cannot enumerate the reasons why it should, are not comparable. They are not related beyond the fact that they both have to do with believing things. The nature of the belief is entirely different, and once again, the fact that a person holds one belief does not validate the other. [/QB][/QUOTE]
You mean the observation and experience that the government will be able to provide a social service at projected cost and can provide what is promised? For someone who's so grounded in observation and paste experiences, after watching Social Security, Medicare, The Post Office, Public Schools etc. I would think you would have very little faith in the government's ability to provide socialized medicine....past experience dictates they are a miserable failure. You sure have a lot of unfounded "faith" in the government.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Faith in a dollar and faith in a religious idea are not comparable in any useful way in this discussion, and certainly the understanding and acceptance of one does not lead to the understanding or acceptance of the other.
You are welcome to help me understand why.
Well, when we talk about "faith" in a dollar we are talking about the belief, based on our collective experiences of economics, that the value of a piece of currency will hold its shape through many transactions of many different kinds. It's similar to the term "good faith," meaning that an unspoken agreement between people exists, and apparently binds those parties to their agreements due to mutual affinity, respect, or fear of reprisal.
What I am objecting to is what I see as a distortion of the concept of faith in currency. Faith in currency is based on real, observable, quantifiable occurrences every day, and throughout history. Faith in currency is not devoted belief in or worship or undue reverence toward the dollar, but rather an appreciation of a mutually agreed system. Though we are aware that throughout history, currencies have fluctuated, been superseded, and even collapsed for various reasons, we still have plenty of common experience that suggests that commerce will continue unabated, almost no matter what happens. In the shorter term, it is wise to trust currency, especially in dealing with small amounts of it, and we are again reassured by our experiences that bear this out. That is why we value even real property in terms of dollars and cents, because the "value" of the thing is not the dollars and cents, but what the dollars and cents represent in value at that moment. It's a fluid relationship, but it's one that acts in an acceptably predictable fashion for most common uses (not talking about complex financial instruments here). I am objecting to the idea that faith in currency is wholly born from nothing, and did not arrive as the end of a process of natural selection. I object especially to the common belief that currency is empowered by some voodoo-like force, that magically causes all people to accept it equally. That isn't the way things are- currencies fluctuate, but our faith is in the observations we make, and what we have learned from them over time. On the other hand, though, the religiously faithful *are* expected to accept that their articles of faith *did not* evolve in this fashion, but rather really *were* placed in their hands by a god or possibly the son of a god, requiring that the religiously faithful ignore the evidence for the origins of their faith, or otherwise justify those origins circularly by always assuming the premise of their faith as the paramount and inevitable conclusion of their existence as human beings.
Religious faith and faith in currency are related in a couple of ways, I will grant. For instance, faith in currency and faith in religious ideas are taught in some of the same ways to children, ie: "this just is the way things are." However, faith in currency remains based on a relatively (though not completely I concede) concrete set of observable phenomena. A reasonable person can look at the evidence for the function of currency, especially where the use of currency leads to socially beneficial financial innovation (such as the concepts of credit and debt, stocks, scalable systems of valuation for virtually any product, etc), and place their faith in the concept as a proven one. Though financial innovation does lead to irrational economic behaviors in a minority of cases, it generally improves the state of economics in societies that have it, as evidenced by the current wealth of the western world. Even if on a daily basis, you and I do not intellectualize the use of currency (though I do, and I suspect many do as well), the intellectual investigation of the concept reinforces our "faith" in it most of the time.
Religious faith doesn't function this way. Religious faith is taught to children in order that they may be persuaded to ignore certain facts in favor of others. Though so far that state applies to both currency and religion, religious faith functions only to bolster religious beliefs that do not have irreplaceable functions in society. For instance, it was once a matter of faith that the Earth was at the center of the universe, and rather than aide society in developing better theories of the way things worked, religious faith maintained the false belief despite better contradictory evidence. Religious faith holds fast, where faith in commerce and currency propels innovation and progress.
Most importantly, at no time has the belief in the importance of currency delayed human progress in any very important and long lasting way. Economic downturns are the results most often of actual changes in the state of the world economy- droughts, wars, famines, shortfalls, climatological changes- currency does not for long retard progress, and does not for long propel the economy in lieu of actual progress. In contrast, religious faith seeks to preserve itself via the destruction of alternate belief sets. Where currency grows out of necessity for a system of valuation, and continues to serve that function continuously, religious faith grows out of a similar need to fill in a gap, and then remains with no actual function, other than to continually perpetuate itself.
Perhaps this is not a conclusion you will find appealing, but the world economy does not exist in order to produce dollars or euros, while any church in the world does exist in order to produce and maintain religious belief. Faith in currency is not an end, but faith in God is.
[ September 21, 2009, 07:02 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I would think you would have very little faith in the government's ability to provide socialized medicine....past experience dictates they are a miserable failure. You sure have a lot of unfounded "faith" in the government.
Not really. Considering every other industrialized country in the world, including the far less industrialized country I actually live in manage to do it while putting a far smaller burden on their economy as a whole, I'd say my faith in the concept is fairly sound.
You have never heard me express anything like faith in the current administration or the current set of senators in Washington on this issue- you're just projecting that from your pathetic liberal stereotype. What I have expressed is faith in the nation having an ability to do socialized medicine, and to do it well. I do not deny the obstacles, including people like you, to that end.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
The concept the Earth was the center of the universe was a scientific belief later supported by the church. The concept of Earth as the center of the universe was based upon the scientific observations of the ancient Greeks in accordance with their current level of science. There was resistance from the church as science proved otherwise, at first but it was a commonly accepted scientific belief, ala Al Gore.."The debate is over"
Some religions do indeed "preserve itself via the destruction of alternate belief sets"...Islam is the epitome of this. Governments and societies also preserve themselves via the destruction of other societies. And in the same way, some governments can undermine their own society and currency, just as ours is today by monetizing the debt and devaluing the currency.
The role of government is also to self perpetuate and expand, observation and experience has shown few instances otherwise...at least since the initial founding of America.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
care to explain why the Canadian government can provide better and cheaper healthcare per capita then the US mal, or heck why every other industrialized nation has a cheaper and better healthcare system per capital then the US?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Funny how the debate suddenly shifted away from religious faith when mal found he had no answer, isn't it? Or perhaps I should have more faith; mal, are you going to come up with some devastating rebuttal, showing why it's perfectly reasonable for you to believe Jesus rose from the dead, by standards of evidence and reasoning that you would also use in other contexts?
I think I can shorten Orincoro a bit: To equivocate between "faith" to mean "a belief supported by considerable empirical evidence, but not completely certain - excreta can occur", such as belief that a dollar will still buy goods a year from now; and "faith" to mean something utterly unsupported by evidence, such as belief in a life after death - to assert that these two meanings are somehow the same, and holding the first kind of "faith" makes it inconsistent to criticise the second - this assertion is deeply, deeply, stupid.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The concept the Earth was the center of the universe was a scientific belief later supported by the church. The concept of Earth as the center of the universe was based upon the scientific observations of the ancient Greeks in accordance with their current level of science. There was resistance from the church as science proved otherwise, at first but it was a commonly accepted scientific belief, ala Al Gore.."The debate is over"
You trade one false analogy for another. Al Gore is not "Science." Al Gore is a politician who likes to make money selling books. Act accordingly.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Better is certainly debatable and cheaper has a lot to do with providing less with longer waiting lists. If by better you mean universal, I could agree. If by better you suggest higher quality, I disagree. The Canadian's that can't wait on the list and have the money, come to America for care. I never hear of a European in need of brain surgery flying to Canada for care, they come to America. The greatest doctors, medical institutions and institutions of medical education are in America. The rest of the world is benefiting from the financial investments of the American people.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The concept the Earth was the center of the universe was a scientific belief later supported by the church. The concept of Earth as the center of the universe was based upon the scientific observations of the ancient Greeks in accordance with their current level of science. There was resistance from the church as science proved otherwise, at first but it was a commonly accepted scientific belief, ala Al Gore.."The debate is over"
You trade one false analogy for another. Al Gore is not "Science." Al Gore is a politician who likes to make money selling books. Act accordingly.
On that we can agree. The Pope wasn't science either when he opposed the new scientific concept of the Sun as the center of the Universe. He was also a politician in control of much of the world.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The concept the Earth was the center of the universe was a scientific belief later supported by the church. The concept of Earth as the center of the universe was based upon the scientific observations of the ancient Greeks in accordance with their current level of science. There was resistance from the church as science proved otherwise, at first but it was a commonly accepted scientific belief, ala Al Gore.."The debate is over"
Some religions do indeed "preserve itself via the destruction of alternate belief sets"...Islam is the epitome of this. Governments and societies also preserve themselves via the destruction of other societies. And in the same way, some governments can undermine their own society and currency, just as ours is today by monetizing the debt and devaluing the currency.
The role of government is also to self perpetuate and expand, observation and experience has shown few instances otherwise...at least since the initial founding of America.
WOAH woah woah, their is ample evidence that certain ancient cultures figured out we were NOT the center of the universe fairly early but was rejected not out of scientific evidence to the contrary but only because the "reason" did not make logical sense to the opponents at the time, ie how could the Moon orbit the earth but nothing else? This was too confusing for people just as seemingly evolution is too confusing for many people today.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Better is certainly debatable and cheaper has a lot to do with providing less with longer waiting lists. If by better you mean universal, I could agree. If by better you suggest higher quality, I disagree.
Stop changing the subject. You're wrong. You are as wrong as you were the last time you said all of these things, and 10 people posted lengthy rebuttals you ignored then because you couldn't answer them. Dig up that thread and post in it, and don't whine to me that I won't debate your stupid points now, because we've all already rebutted all of them before, and you've already ignored them every time. You remind me of my little sister who would lose and argument, and then immediately bring up some other argument as if no one would remember already having that one.
quote:On that we can agree. The Pope wasn't science either when he opposed the new scientific concept of the Sun as the center of the Universe. He was also a politician in control of much of the world.
Are you making a point or just saying things? The Pope represented a church, which represented and crafted a faith. Let's keep the topic in those cross hairs big guy.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: care to explain why the Canadian government can provide better and cheaper healthcare per capita then the US mal, or heck why every other industrialized nation has a cheaper and better healthcare system per capital then the US?
Mal could, with some justice on his side, argue that your assertion is not in fact true; the usual statistics trotted out by Democrats to prove this assertion are fraught with complications and generally do not show what they are alleged to show. He could also argue that the rest of the free world is doing this by refusing to pay market price for American-developed drugs, and therefore free-riding on American R&D budgets. But neither of these points has anything to do with whether that dang Jew rose from the dead or not. You're allowing him to distract you from the main point with this quibbling over what "faith" means. Stick to the point and drill down!
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I'm not changing the subject but rebutting your lack of evince and past experience insistence in regards to religion. I've repeatedly attempted to tie together that one's faith in government or humanism is no less obsurd and also lacking of evidence through past experience.
In fact in regards to religion there is a lack of evidence for the existence of God but no evidence to the contrary.
In regards to government and humanity, there is ample evidence AGAINST them. You are equally foolish to sit back and have faith that your social security check will be available as you would to avoid the doctor due to a belief in divine intervention.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: In regards to government and humanity, there is ample evidence AGAINST them. You are equally foolish to sit back and have faith that your social security check will be available as you would to avoid the doctor due to a belief in divine intervention.
Right now I'm asking myself why I bothered to type out a 1,000 word post to have you assert an article of faith on my part that I have never, in my life, stated, nor that I hold, and that I specifically stated 5 minutes ago I do not hold. Moreover, I am wondering why you are asserting that belief as if it is connected with my post about commerce and currency, when that post has nothing to do with government institutions at all, much less health care.
I'm asking myself this, and I don't have an answer.
quote: I'm not changing the subject but rebutting your lack of evince and past experience insistence in regards to religion. I've repeatedly attempted to tie together that one's faith in government or humanism is no less obsurd and also lacking of evidence through past experience.
You consider making oblique reference to off topic debates to be rebuttals?
I do see you trying to tie things together. You seem to be attempting to tie my left sleeve to my right sleeve.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:In fact in regards to religion there is a lack of evidence for the existence of God but no evidence to the contrary.
On such grounds as these, you can just as well believe in unicorns, as you must well know.
quote:In regards to government and humanity, there is ample evidence AGAINST them. You are equally foolish to sit back and have faith that your social security check will be available as you would to avoid the doctor due to a belief in divine intervention.
On this point there is at least evidence that social security checks have arrived in the past, and - even if social security as such collapses - that almost all societies have taken some sort of care for their elders. But as a matter of fact, I do not expect to get a social security check upon my retirement, and am taking steps to ensure I won't need one.
But that has nothing to do with Jesus. If I believed in the divinity of Odin, the existence of the Golden Plates, that vaccination causes autism, and that you can get rid of body thetans by donating money, all at the same time, that would be very stupid of me. But it would still not excuse your equally silly beliefs. You cannot justify a nonrational belief by sitting about shouting "You have them too!" Either you have evidence or you do not. If you have evidence, show it. If you do not, admit it. If you want to discuss my irrational beliefs, start a separate thread for it; and don't make assumptions on what they are.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I'm sorry for not addressing your personal viewpoints. I've been making a concerted effort to keep it general as to not personally offend an individual.
Money is a needed form of exchange backed up by the "full faith and credit of the US government". Worldwide "faith" in US is leading to a drop in the dollar and calls for a different world standard. It isn't the US economic output pushing this call, rather the behavior of those in power. The irresponsible actions of the current administration is tanking the dollar. The dollar is not solely dependent upon GDP but faith and trust as well. There is no doubt it represents the production of goods and services but the main item being produced right now is paper that is green with numbers on it.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: In fact in regards to religion there is a lack of evidence for the existence of God but no evidence to the contrary.
Give an example of something that you would regard as evidence to the contrary [for the existence of God].
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
King
I've already said earlier, can't prove it to you and I'm glad you are happy with your current belief set. Not trying to convert you and I don't have a video tape of Jesus' resurrection to produce.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Money is a needed form of exchange backed up by the "full faith and credit of the US government". Worldwide "faith" in US is leading to a drop in the dollar and calls for a different world standard. It isn't the US economic output pushing this call, rather the behavior of those in power. The irresponsible actions of the current administration is tanking the dollar.
Well, now you're at least making mistakes that can be corrected. No, simply put, you are mistaken. I understand why you want to believe this, and I may even understand why you actually *do* believe this, though I have obviously been getting better information, along with nearly everyone on this forum.
In very, very short form (leaving 90% of the picture out in favor of one central part of it) the US dollar was inflated because the Chinese economy was producing far above and beyond its actual capacity for consumption. In other words, Chinese production soared, but the Chinese economy was not equipped to distribute the money it earned, as it had relatively few products of value to sell to its own people. This meant that the Chinese needed a way to lay off the excess cash, and trusted the American financial system to invest its money, and so invested in US Banks. The US banks suddenly found that they themselves had too much money running around with nothing to do in order to earn them a decent percentage, and so the financial sector in the US (as well as Europe) began to invent bigger and bigger and more and more complex financial instruments in order to hand out and manage more and more loans to more and more people.
Thus, a Chinese laborer is able to produce 3 times what he did at his job 25 years ago, and so at the end of a long chain of causes and effects, another house is built in the desert outside of Flagstaff Arizona, or Reno, and the "owner" gets an unsecured loan for the whole amount from a bank that is selling thousands of these mortgages bundled into larger securities.
Here's where poor governance comes in, and you're not going to like it. A lack of effective regulation (though not a lack of total regulators), caused these very poor and rickety investments to be rated as being very secure investments, so people all over the world bought and traded them like they were worth more than they actually were. Then when people slowly realized that there wasn't going to be enough money earned in all the United States to pay for all those new houses and eventually pay off the investment from China, and thousands of debtors defaulted on their loans, people suddenly realized that the US economy was about to contract, meaning it would actually produce less than it did before. That meant that the value of all US assets and to a lesser extent all assets valued in dollars would start to go down in value. That's what happened.
It was happening well, well before Barack Obama was even a candidate for President. The value of the dollar against the pound reached a periodic low in 2007, just as it did against the Euro, Swiss Frank, Czech Koruna, and many other currencies. Then the financial fallout from this series of errors began to effect the European economy, and the value of the dollar in comparison to those currencies buoyed. Then people started saying, "hey wait a minute, I don't like all this fluctuating... let's think about another currency here!" Then they all sat down and thought about it. And that's where we are today.
Not for nothing, a lack of effective regulation did cause the recession in the sense that the government (Bush's term, not Obama's) failed to stop it or see it coming. But then, the financial sector had been faced with a nearly impossible dilemma, like a fat kid with too many cookies in his hand, and his mom knocking on the door, the US economy stuffed all the cookies into its mouth, and now we're feeling a little sick.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I've repeatedly attempted to tie together that one's faith in government or humanism is no less obsurd and also lacking of evidence through past experience.
Mal, can you give an example of some event that would "falsify" your religious faith?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I've already said earlier, can't prove it to you and I'm glad you are happy with your current belief set.
I know you can't prove it to me; if you could, you would have. I'm asking how you prove it to yourself. Why do you hold a belief for which you have no evidence? Or for the evidence you have, why do you not trust the equally reliable evidence for other silly beliefs? I don't believe your brain is a random number generator; you must have some sort of 'reasoning' for believing as you do.
Let me save you some time by forestalling the usual defenses:
"It makes me happy". So does Prozac; are you taking Prozac? If not, why not?
"Why shouldn't I believe what I like?" Because in all other fields, you profess, unless you are very unusual indeed, that you not only do believe, but also want to believe, only what is true, and only what you have evidence for.
"It gives me a moral code" - this can be done with or without the added accusations that atheists don't have one. So extract the moral code and drop the belief; nothing about the Sermon on the Mount requires you to believe that its author rose from the dead. I note in passing that it does require you to give a lot more to charity than you are actually doing, but that's besides the point.
"I enjoy the social aspects". So go to church and sing, but drop the silly belief structure. Nothing about enjoying organ music requires you to believe in divinities.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: In other words, Chinese production soared, but the Chinese economy was not equipped to distribute the money it earned, as it had relatively few products of value to sell to its own people. This meant that the Chinese needed a way to lay off the excess cash, and trusted the American financial system to invest its money, and so invested in US Banks.
AFAIK, the Chinese yuan is not pegged to the US dollar for that reason. The peg is maintained for (in their minds) stability, when you are a developing nation, many countries will have doubts in the value of your currency so pegging it to a better known currency is common.
Consistency and stability is why the Hong Kong dollar is still pegged to the USD today and why the Canadian dollar was pegged to the USD as late as 1970. In fact, the dollar peg for China and Hong Kong were both applauded in 1997 for their role in providing stability during that time's financial crisis.
However, the way the Chinese maintain their peg is to make their currency not freely convertible. In other words, all foreign money going into China can only be exchanged at government-controlled banks which have to retain that cash in order to maintain that peg.
Thus, during a trade surplus, these banks will retain a growing amount of USD to the tune of something like two trillion in total.
It is this "asset" which is making them quite worried since it is the US recession (and the accompanying massive printing of money) which is making them worried about the ability of the US to continue backing the value of the USD at its current value.
(As a total aside, AFAIK, very little of the USD surplus was invested in equities or US banks. Most of it is in treasury bonds. At one point they were making very hyped investments into corporate debt and US equities, but this was only a small fraction of the total)
All of which is a long winded way of saying that Mal is not 100% wrong and the rumblings about an international alternative to the USD really is due to a drop in confidence in the US government and associated economy.
But this whole digression has to be ended with the agreement that the confidence that the world has in the US government (and the dollar) has very little to do with religious faith.
(It also has very little to do with the current administration too. This has been going on for a very very long time)
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Religious faith doesn't function this way. Religious faith is taught to children in order that they may be persuaded to ignore certain facts in favor of others. Though so far that state applies to both currency and religion, religious faith functions only to bolster religious beliefs that do not have irreplaceable functions in society.
At least in the church I go to (I can't speak for all denominations of all religions), religious faith is not understood in the above fashion. I don't recall sermons suggesting we need to ignore certain facts in favor of others. Instead faith is usually described more in terms of ignoring certain emotions (fear, doubt, etc.) in favor of facts and evidence.
But, at the same time, I will admit that faith (as a word) is used in many ways within religion, and is often mystified and glorified in ways that make it hard to pin down or compare to other types of "faith". Sometimes people will speak as if faith by itself is operating in their lives. Sometimes people will speak of faith as if it is a possession they have to guard. Sometimes it is treated as a character trait. I'm not always exactly sure what to make of statements like that, and in those respects, it can't be equated exactly with any other "type" of faith. Faith in currency is certainly not mystified in that way.
quote:Gentlemen, why are you arguing with someone who has repeatedly demonstrated that he does not understand the difference between 1% and 99%? If you can only be 99% certain of something, Tres calls that "faith", and the same thing as believing in something that has a 1% chance of being true.
A food that is 99% salt and a food that is 1% salt both contain salt. Believing that does not require any confusion about the difference between 1 and 99.
quote:Can you give an example of something that would falsify your religious faith?
For example, my "faith" in the value of the dollar would be falsified by, e.g., a massive increase in prices, or merchants refusing to accept dollars etc etc.
If I died and found myself reincarnated as a conscious rock, I'd conclude many of my religious beliefs must be way off. Or, more simply, if I came to the conclusion that the most basic moral values taught by my religion were false (like "love thy neighbor"), I'd have to reject the religion.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Except nearly every one of those values can be objectively ascertained through the far more scientifically rigorous process of analyzing ethical systems.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:A food that is 99% salt and a food that is 1% salt both contain salt. Believing that does not require any confusion about the difference between 1 and 99.
No. But there's a very fundamental difference between eating a pound of food that is 1% salt and a pound of food that is 99% salt. One may be reasonably healthy. The other will probably kill you. King and Orincono's point is that there is a fundamental difference between faith in something that has 99% certainty and faith in something that has 1%.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
With the large number of religious faiths there are in the world, maybe it would be easier to focus on why only small fraction of the human population does not believe in god. The details, even between Christian denominations, is as contentious as my conversation with an atheist. The obvious question is, "Why do people believe in god?"
I think the core belief is inherent in us. Perhaps it is leftover genetic memory not unlike our fear of snakes, spiders and rotten flesh. Personally I think we just know yet tend to get hung up on the details.
As I said before, I spent many years struggling to point that I identified myself as agnostic. It wasn't pressure from family or church that caused my internal struggle, rather the pressure from society and science that I had difficulty reconciling with what I felt. Only when I slowly realized that it isn't an all or nothing issue, could I reconcile what I knew innately with what I learned academically. IE, my earlier example of the Big Bang explaining the moment of creation. If it were an all or nothing situation and I were required to believe every word of the Bible literally, I would have to reject it. In many ways, I view the Bible as a conversation between a parent and a very young child. When my two year old asked me where babies came from, I told her they come from mommy and daddy and grow in mommy's tummy. While lacking the scientific details, she accepted this explanation.
Obviously, not all people have this innate belief, but I know very few people who are completely atheist. In fact, the majority of people I know reject organized religion but believe in God. Why would someone who never went to church as a child or had religiously indifferent parents, maintain even that belief at their core?
We just know and look for an explanation of what we already know....who is god? Different faiths suit different people differently. I imagine God being very proud of humans for figuring out His puzzle, while at the same time being disappointed because those who figured it out stopped believing in Him.
[ September 22, 2009, 08:57 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: In many ways, I view the Bible as a conversation between a parent and a very young child. When my two year old asked me where babies came from, I told her they come from mommy and daddy and grow in mommy's tummy. While lacking the scientific details, she accepted this explanation.
I think what clearly concerns me and many others is that this childish fiction is understood as temporary when you're speaking to your daughter about babies. It's takes on varying degrees of permanence with religious ideas, anywhere from the sort-of-whatever belief in Noah's Ark, to the all consuming passion for the idea that Jesus (assuming such a person existed) died for our sins on a cross and came back from the dead.
I agree that religious ideas are childlike and folkish. But to quote your own Paul of Tarsus:
"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."
(note: please do not take my quotation of a particularly secular bible verse as an affirmation of the righteousness of Christianity.)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I think the core belief is inherent in us.
So in effect you are literally blaming your genes? Well, that's a switch for someone generally rather far to the right. Are you seriously going to disavow personal responsibility for your beliefs? If it comes to what's inherent in us, all men should be out tomcatting, spreading their genes as much as possible; and yes, some do, but you don't believe their actions righteous.
And, one more time: Do you, or do you not, believe that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead three days after being taken off a Roman cross? (Which incidentally contradicts what's known of this method of execution; the corpses were left in place to encourage others.) You cannot possibly claim that this belief is "inherent", and yet it is the very core of Christianity; without the Resurrection, all you have is a vaguely altruistic code of ethics, no different from what's been proposed by a dozen other thinkers.
If you wish to retreat into deism, fine; it gets sufficiently vague that it's hard to argue against, in a mushy, invisible-dragon, "the willow bends, the oak has the courage of its convictions" sort of way. But you claimed to be a Christian. If you do not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, I suggest you retract that claim. If you do so believe, you should not advance arguments for a mushy deism, you should say - at a minimum, to yourself - what convinced you; or if you cannot do so, give up the conviction.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I do believe that. What I find amusing is to have an atheist question the foolish beliefs of a believer when the vast majority of the human population holds a religious belief.
To understand religion we should focus on what makes the extreme minority different. Asking a believer why he believes what he does is like a homosexual critically inquiring why a straight man is attracted to women. I could think of many logical/rational arguments for two men partnering in life. Another strong back around the house and in many ways would have more in common....but it is still not the natural way of things.
The atheists are the rarity in the human condition and to answer the questions about the religious human condition we should focus the lens on the oddity of the atheist and what sets them apart. It is amusing to be treated as an odd believer in mythology when I fall into the vast majority...the non believers are the oddity of humanity.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
So your defense is now "everyone else is doing it, so you're not allowed to question it"? Seriously? I notice you don't provide any actual answers, only contorted reasons I should not ask the question. Do you really feel no cognitive dissonance when your best defense for a core belief is "lots of people believe similar things"? The majority of people who know what it is, believe that global warming exists, is man-caused, and is a big problem. So why don't you? The majority of people throughout history believed that slavery was natural and unavoidable. Why don't you?
Leaving aside the question of whether or not it's amusing to doubt something "everyone" believes - I note that in other contexts, like the aforementioned global warming, you would probably find this courageous rather than funny - can we agree that this doesn't actually have anything to do with whether Jesus was divine? I'm asking you seriously. You don't really believe that you've made any arguments that would show this to be true, right? So if you haven't, why not? You must have some sort of reason for believing as you do; I don't demand that it shall be convincing to me, but there must be some reason you believe.
Now maybe, if you state your reason, I'll say "That argument works just as well for Odin. Why don't you believe in Odin?" In fact I already have, further up in the thread. If you think this is likely to happen, let's skip a step ahead. It seems to me there are two options: Either you disagree that this form of evidence is just as strong for Odin. In that case, we'll just have to drop the discussion, because there's nowhere for it to go; I will think you are being dishonest with yourself, but you are not likely to die of grief for this cause.
The other possibility is that, on second (fifth? hundredth?) thought, you realise that your evidence doesn't actually look so strong as all that. Can we consider this possibility as a hypothetical? Since I don't know what your evidence is, I won't make a specific criticism of it right now. Instead I ask this: If there is some piece of evidence which you consider important to your belief; and that evidence is actually equally strong for a different belief; what will you do? Please note, I'm asking this as a hypothetical, so - of your courtesy - don't deny the premise; that is, don't say "That won't happen". It's a thought experiment, similar to "What would you do if aliens landed?" If you answer "There are no aliens", you're not going to learn much.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:No. But there's a very fundamental difference between eating a pound of food that is 1% salt and a pound of food that is 99% salt. One may be reasonably healthy. The other will probably kill you. King and Orincono's point is that there is a fundamental difference between faith in something that has 99% certainty and faith in something that has 1%.
I agree.
quote:But to quote your own Paul of Tarsus:
"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."
This may be a fundamental disagreement about our position/role in the universe, though. I'd say that human beings are essentially children in our understanding of the universe. We really know very little.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
King,
I have no problem speaking about my faith but it's obvious you have a problem with Christianity. The chip isn't only on your shoulder, it's in your screen name. I've tried to avoid specific attacks on anyone's belief system or to engage in that type of exchange.
Why do I have faith in Jesus? I believe the eyewitness testimony that has been written down. This testimony is not only contained in the Bible, it was recorded in other texts of the day. Testimony that was so profound it quickly spread around the known world. I understand in today's world of cell phone video and You Tube, the written testimony of thousands of people thousands of years ago may seem kinda stale. I don't think there's an expiration date for eyewitness testimony and even a living witness in front of a jury might not convince all the jurors. I don't know much about Odin but if you could point out some documents that were written by people who walked the Earth with him or were politicians in neighboring cities of different faiths, I'd appreciate it.
Against what you've suggested earlier, Christianity spreads of it's own accord, even under threat of death and persecution. The religions that you suggest impose themselves on people are not Christianity. Although there are millions of people under the thumb of communists and other theocracies who secretly worship Jesus. Please, point out a tyrannical Christian theocracy for me. There are tyrannical parents of all sorts and I would think the child of a Christian tyrant might have opinions similar to yours thus ending the spread of the faith. People believe in god and seek the truth. I believe Christianity is the truth but if I lived in Iran I would probably be a Muslim and not be satisfied. (are any of them satisfied?) If my parents only fed me tofu I would always have a hunger, if even an unknown one. You can live on a diet of beans and rice but I want more. Once you have meat and potatoes, beans and rice just doesn't cut it any more. Christians are persecuted because people so readily convert to it of their own accord. It poses a great threat to those in power in China and the middle east.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:This testimony is not only contained in the Bible, it was recorded in other texts of the day.
Wait a second. You're talking about contemporary texts citing eyewitness evidence for the Resurrection?
This would be huge news, if such texts existed. What are you referring to?
quote:Please, point out a tyrannical Christian theocracy for me.
Does it have to be a theocracy? Can it be merely an officially Christian state?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Many non-christian religions and pervasive atheism only survive as a high percentage of population in states where the government persecutes the other faiths or lack of the approved faith or any faith at all. Christianity thrives in free nations and even exists in the most Christian hostile places. The Iranian people are much more pro western than their leaders make them out to be. If suddenly the middle east, North Korea and China were free, billions around the world would defect from their state imposed belief systems and a large portion of those would become Christians,...freely.
How many first edition books can you find from even two hundred years ago? Recently in Hatrack someone was so excited to find such a rare find, although the book exists in high numbers later on. The original letters of Paul or Pilate would be amazing but their content was so important that it was copied thousands of times. The witnesses told their stories and their stories written down and told to others. First editions are hard to find, and in this case, it wasn't an edition, it was only one original. They found an original "copy" of the Declaration of Independence and is expected to sell for 500k.
[ September 23, 2009, 08:16 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:How many first edition books can you find from even two hundred years ago?
Does that mean that you aren't aware of any other corroborating reports of the Resurrection? Because, frankly, neither am I.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
First editions? KoM hasn't been talking about first editions, he's been talking about any editions of works written contemporaneously, with reports. They don't exist. And we have quite a few editions of works that significantly predate or are contemporaneous with that period, so it isn't hard at all to imagine a text surviving since then through copying; lots did.
Could you list any of these "other texts of the day" that recorded the existence of Jesus contemporaneously with his life? No need for a first edition, or even a direct copy. I'll take a reference to another text, in a text not unreasonably post-dating the original, as acceptable. Just one, since you were so comfortable saying they existed.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
If the question here is why do Christians believe in the resurrection, it should be noted that most Christians take the Gospel as written in the Bible to be fairly accurate factual accounts of history. I'm sure many assume that other texts existed at one point and have been lost, but I don't think many take those other texts to be an important cornerstone of the logic behind their beliefs.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Tres: of course, none of the gospels in the Bible is contemporaneous with the time. They all post date it by at least thirty of forty years (and some decades more), and it doesn't seem like any were written by someone who saw the events first hand; so, they at best tell us what certain groups of people believed happen according to what they heard from others. But anyways, that isn't the question at the moment. The question I'm interested in is why he is asserting there are contemporaneous texts. KoM seems to be investigating his belief (not any general Christian belief) in the resurrection, since he's asserted he does in part because there are firsthand accounts of it. We're waiting for any of those to be produced.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Many non-christian religions and pervasive atheism only survive as a high percentage of population in states where the government persecutes the other faiths or lack of the approved faith or any faith at all. Christianity thrives in free nations and even exists in the most Christian hostile places. The Iranian people are much more pro western than their leaders make them out to be. If suddenly the middle east, North Korea and China were free, billions around the world would defect from their state imposed belief systems and a large portion of those would become Christians,...freely.
How many first edition books can you find from even two hundred years ago? Recently in Hatrack someone was so excited to find such a rare find, although the book exists in high numbers later on. The original letters of Paul or Pilate would be amazing but their content was so important that it was copied thousands of times. The witnesses told their stories and their stories written down and told to others. First editions are hard to find, and in this case, it wasn't an edition, it was only one original. They found an original "copy" of the Declaration of Independence and is expected to sell for 500k.
Japan is a free nation and Christians only make up a tiny tiny tiny percent.
So ya good job being wrong yet again.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
KoM, when you talk about the divinity of Jesus Christ, what, exactly, do you mean? Do you think that you and I mean the same thing by that?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Also, some of the nations with the largest populations of Muslims (India, Indonesia) have governmentally-respected freedom of religion.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Specifically on China, it would be reasonably expected to go much the way of Hong Kong or Taiwan given more religious freedom.
However, both Taiwan and Hong Kong have exceedingly small Christian populations which are outnumbered greatly by both local religion traditions and the non-religious.
In the case of Hong Kong during the British colonial days, this is despite very compelling forces pushing the Chinese middle class to convert as a way of assimilating into the British upper class and the establishment of well-funded religious schools by foreigners with the aim of conversion.
These days with the wane of colonial influences and the continuing decline of American (and European) influence in the word, these factors are shrinking. Specifically, IIRC, Hong Kong is measured by Gallup as being even less religious than Japan or France.
So I expect that we've actually seen the upper bounds of how Christianity will perform, which isn't all that impressive.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mucus:
quote:So I expect that we've actually seen the upper bounds of how Christianity will perform, which isn't all that impressive.
Color me surprised, I'd be interested in what your bar of impressiveness would be. In a world of over 6 billion people, over 1 billion describe themselves as Christians. If we take the sheer number of people who know about Jesus even if they don't necessarily believe in his divinity the number grows even greater.
Were we to take historical figures throughout history and detail how many people know of them, I'd say Jesus is in strong contention for the number one spot.
And the man was born 2009 years ago.
But again, I'd be interested in seeing what you think would be impressive.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Uuum I fail to see how thats relevent to what Mucus said.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Uuum I fail to see how thats relevent to what Mucus said.
Mucus said we have likely seen the high water mark for how Christianity will perform as a religion. I am suggesting that to say it is unimpressive is to in a sense setting the bar so high that nothing can reasonably reach it, thus making the word impressive somewhat useless.
Are you succeeding now?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think he meant the upper bounds of how it will perform in China.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
No he said we have seen the high water mark in the relevent Asian nations mal was certain would be an "overwhelming" amount of success.
edit: to BB
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
BlackBlade, this actually.
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: I think he meant the upper bounds of how it will perform in China.
Edit to add: (And my benchmark, like Mal's original assertion if China suddenly adopted a hands-off policy in regards to religion, is conversion rather than simple knowledge of Jesus' existence)
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The atheists are the rarity in the human condition and to answer the questions about the religious human condition we should focus the lens on the oddity of the atheist and what sets them apart.
What's wrong with you? I mean, really, what's wrong with you?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
fugu13/Blayne: Ah yes, I see it now. I made a mistake.
But in regards to China, Christianity has had in the past very significant inroads (Taiping Rebellion). Even if only 3% of the Chinese people convert upon being offered the right to choose, that's still another 30 million or so people added to Christianity's rolls.
Further, the people of mainland China in some significant ways are unlike the people in Hong Kong or Taiwan. These difference in some cases make me more likely to agree with Mucus, but there are some other factors at work.
I think the largest obstacle to Christian integration in China is that it is largely perceived as a Western believe system, whereas Buddhism and Taoism are seen as Eastern. I think Buddhism and Taoism managed to pass a threshold where suddenly that was no longer an issue as so many Chinese had adopted it that there was a flood of conversion. If Christianity sustains enough converts that people in China see Christianity as assimilated into the greater Chinese culture, I think you will see much larger conversion numbers.
It's much harder to convert 1-5% of a population than it is to convert 20-35% of the population.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: KoM, when you talk about the divinity of Jesus Christ, what, exactly, do you mean? Do you think that you and I mean the same thing by that?
No, I don't. I do not think that you assign any meaning to the phrase at all, in the sense that people who actually believe things, as opposed to believing in belief, think of meaning. And before you ask, no, I don't classify you as a Christian. I was, however, talking to malanthrop, and I suspect he and I assign meanings which are at least close enough to communicate about.
If you want to have a discussion not based on "choosing to believe" things, I suggest this working definition: "Jesus of Nazareth was crucified until his heart stopped; brain and other biochemical activity ceased for a period of three days; brain and heart activity then resumed." This is a definition of the resurrection rather than the divinity, but I'll accept the one as very strong evidence of the other, even without having a formal specification of divinity.
quote:Why do I have faith in Jesus? I believe the eyewitness testimony that has been written down.
quote:Christianity spreads of its own accord, even under threat of death and persecution.
quote:if I lived in Iran I would probably be a Muslim and not be satisfied.
So, summarising, you have three main reasons for your belief; first, that the biblical accounts are true; second, that Christianity is expanding without state intervention; third, that Moslems and presumably other kinds of theists have a 'hunger' which would be satisfied if they were Christians. Is that a fair rephrasing?
These reasons are, as you must well know, utterly unconvincing to anyone not already a Christian; but I won't attack them just at the moment. Instead I'll repeat my previous question. Suppose you were shown that the Gospels are matched by equally well-attested accounts of miracles in other traditions. Would this undermine the first pillar of your belief? Then suppose you were shown that Christianity was in fact retreating, or that its expansion required force, or that all things equal it is atheism that expands of its own accord. Would your faith be weakened? And third, if I were able to attach a satisfaction-O-meter to the heads of Christians, Moslems, and atheists, and show no statistically significant difference, would you conclude differently?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
KoM, I must say I am sort of amused by your defining Christianity as whateve is narrow and specific (and possibly silly) enough that you can disprove it.
New motto: If KoM can't pick it apart, it ain't religion.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Many non-christian religions and pervasive atheism only survive as a high percentage of population in states where the government persecutes the other faiths or lack of the approved faith or any faith at all. Christianity thrives in free nations and even exists in the most Christian hostile places.
It has been pointed out to you by KoM and by me so many times as to become a chorus to any such discussion. The fact that Christianity is widespread or spreads among many different peoples is not affirmative evidence of anything useful. If you would only stop and investigate your own statement, and what it actually signifies, you would realize that you could replace Christianity with "capitalism." Recently I listened to a story on NPR about enclaves of capitalism in North Korea- it fits your statement perfectly.
And yet, I hope you do not worship capitalism, or Michael Jackson, or the internet, cocaine, or one of the million things one could insert into such an ad hominem argument in order to justify what they believe in, without actually justifying what they believe in. In fact, athiesm fits your statement perfectly, and it is just as true.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
KoM, I must say I am sort of amused by your defining Christianity as whateve is narrow and specific (and possibly silly) enough that you can disprove it.
New motto: If KoM can't pick it apart, it ain't religion.
I didn't say you aren't religious, I said you aren't a Christian. What you've got is not Christianity, it's a code of ethics cherry-picked from the Western tradition to suit your intuition, plus a set of meaningless phrases boiling down to "Jesus was a good guy" and "Love is a good thing". This is a religion of sorts, but Christianity it ain't.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yeah. I can't really see why I should value your opinion on whether or not I am a Christian more than that of my priest's opinion.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I didn't say you should. I give you my opinion free gratis, even though it is worth its weight in gold; but having gotten the gift, you may do what you like with it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ah...well, thanks then.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: But in regards to China, Christianity has had in the past very significant inroads (Taiping Rebellion).
Let us not forget what we're actually talking about though. Mal's assertion is that Christianity is the truth and that a Muslim living in Iran would not be satisfied without it, that there is a hunger for Christianity that Islam does not fulfill.
While you and I may classify Taiping theology as Christianity, I doubt that if the rebellion has succeeded that Christianity as a whole would claim the Taiping as their own. In particular, I doubt Mal would claim it as his own just like he does not claim Islam.
Second, the Taiping were so successful due to reasons that are unlikely to repeat again today. In particular, a central tenant of their belief system was that with the help of God, they were going to drive out of China both the foreign devils and the Manchu regime that was collaborating with them. This anti-foreigner impulse has been largely co-opted by the CCP. In addition, at the time China was largely technologically inferior to the West. The world over, we've seen that cultures will often rapidly adopt the culture and religion of technologically or economically superior nations. This too is largely over.
quote: I think the largest obstacle to Christian integration in China is that it is largely perceived as a Western believe system, whereas Buddhism and Taoism are seen as Eastern.
In this I agree, but the problem is not merely numbers but the fact that this is, well, true.
Taoism is founded in China, Buddhism in India but with a very ancient tradition in China, incorporated seamlessly into mythology and culture. Additionally, Christianity relies upon its association with the West for its appeal. Even in Canada, it is largely sold to Chinese immigrants as being the reason behind the West's development.
Without this link, Christianity just becomes another religion with nothing to recommend it over the likes of a Falun Gong which is better adapted to Chinese tradition and culture.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I can't really see why I should value your opinion on whether or not I am a Christian more than that of my priest's opinion.
Salient to this conversation, however, is the fact that you almost certainly wouldn't value your priest's opinion, either. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Ah...well, thanks then.
You are welcome. As a matter of curiosity, am I correct in my guess that you do not believe the resurrection happened as defined above?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Not that anyone else's impression should matter, but I also find it difficult to label kmbboots as "christian." (to the extent that labels are meaningful and useful to me). And obviously, I would say it nicer than KoM, but still.
I am an Orthodox Jew, so maybe I am biased, but I think orthodoxy is important part of religion.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I can't really see why I should value your opinion on whether or not I am a Christian more than that of my priest's opinion.
Salient to this conversation, however, is the fact that you almost certainly wouldn't value your priest's opinion, either.
Not true! I think my priest - actually there are a couple that I would consider "mine" - are brilliant and of course I value their opinions. Several spiritual advisors as well along with various co-religionists.
Armoth, I don't expect you to adhere to the precepts of my religion. If I claimed to be an Orthodox Jew, you might have a point. I have no problem with orthodoxy being a part of your religion.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So if a priest said you weren't a Christian, or particularly a Catholic, you'd believe him?
I ask this because our local Bishop is actually on the verge of making just such pronouncements; he's got a hair trigger on the Excommunication Ray.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Depends on the priest and the particular arguments he made. I would also consider the opinion of a consensus of priests (heh, good luck with that).
ETA: Tom, IIRC correctly, your bishop would excommunicate more than half of the Catholics in the US.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I don't think Orthodoxy is particular to Judaism. I think that it means that you follow the precepts of your religion as opposed to allowing moral intuition to guide what you think you should follow and what you think you shouldn't.
Most religions are about submitting to a higher authority. Judaism certainly believes it. Islam literally means submission. I feel like it is an essential part of every religion.
If you have religion submit to YOUR will, then haven't you just created your own religion?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Armoth, what do you mean by "higher authority"? If you mean a particular person or group of people, how is that higher? If you mean submitting to God's will, that is different but how do you know that I don't - as much as I can?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mucus: You are right that sects like Fa Lun Gong lend themselves better to Chinese sensibilities. But the Chinese still appreciate old ideas. Like you said if the ideas fit neatly into their preexisting mythos it's much easier. But currently Mainland China is as close to a blank slate religiously as it has ever been or perhaps could be. If they reject Christianity it won't be because the community is Buddhist and they don't want to rock the boat. Instead, it will be because they don't much agree with the ideas. Even if the Mainland Chinese didn't convert en masse, I could easily see groups like Yi Guan Dao springing up all over China. While they are not strictly speaking Christian, they have no foibles with kidnapping the ideas Jesus uttered, slapping a seal of approval on the ones they like, and saying he was a sage.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I think that every person when they adhere to a particular faith needs to figure out what they think God wants from them. If you subscribe to a particular religion, that means that they have convinced you that their system of knowledge reflects God's will. If they have not convinced you, then you are not a follower of that faith.
If you think parts of their philosophy is God's will, then you believe in your own religion.
(No judgments made, this is all for labeling purposes)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Armoth, it is fine that you think that is true for your religion. It is demonstrably not true for mine. Many people who dissented with a particular teaching of the Church at the time were later considered heroes of the Church - even saints. That is how our religion grows and gets better.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Okay, but at least there is a new label formed. Catholic, Protestant....Mormon.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I'm not sure what you mean. I am Catholic. It is the same label.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:They have no foibles with kidnapping the ideas Jesus uttered, slapping a seal of approval on the ones they like, and saying he was a sage.
Total side issue: 'Foibles' doesn't have the meaning you appear to be assigning it here; possibly you are thinking of 'scruples'. A foible is a small eccentricity, like making your own rose water for shaving, or being polite to Christians. A scruple is an ethical qualm, like wondering whether it's quite the done thing to shoot people for believing nonsense.
But to address your substantive point, recall that the original context was mal's assertion that Christian converts are evidence of the truth of Christianity, and in particular of Jesus' divinity. This requires, I think mal would agree, that they believe at a minimum in resurrection and eternal life. You can chop a lot of stuff out of Christianity but if you don't believe that Jesus rose from the dead, I don't see how you can call yourself Christian. The un-original code of ethics that Jesus proposed doesn't have any bearing on this.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
If the anti-gay folks who protest at funerals get described as Christians in newspaper articles, despite their profoundly un-Christ-like behavior, then Christianty has to be an extremely broad umbrella... Certainly I'd think its broad enough to include kmbboots.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Armoth, it is fine that you think that is true for your religion. It is demonstrably not true for mine. Many people who dissented with a particular teaching of the Church at the time were later considered heroes of the Church - even saints. That is how our religion grows and gets better.
Although I am not that familiar with Catholic hagiography, I suspect that there were not many saints who denied the resurrection. Again, am I correct in thinking you don't believe in it? And if so, have you discussed this with your priest, or are you making assumptions on what he would say? There are liberal and conservative strains within Catholicism, obviously, but it does not follow that one can deny that Jesus rose from the dead and still reasonably call oneself a Catholic. Words have meanings, although I don't know why I'm telling you this since I know you don't believe it. Have you read the Nicene creed lately? To the best of my knowledge, Catholics are still required to affirm it.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Can you give an example of something that would falsify your religious faith?
For example, my "faith" in the value of the dollar would be falsified by, e.g., a massive increase in prices, or merchants refusing to accept dollars etc etc.
If I died and found myself reincarnated as a conscious rock, I'd conclude many of my religious beliefs must be way off. Or, more simply, if I came to the conclusion that the most basic moral values taught by my religion were false (like "love thy neighbor"), I'd have to reject the religion.
Sorry to come back to this - I realize the conversation has probably moved on - but I haven't had access.
Anyway, can you suggest a scenario whereby you might come to such a conclusion?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
KoM, you are making some assumptions based on some things I have not written. And some wrong assumptions based on things I have written. I believe that I have written that my faith would not be fundamentally altered should definitive proof against the resurrection come to light. That is not the same a not believing in the resurrection, now.
Of course, the resurrection is so much more complicated idea than you are making it. But that is way more theological discussion than I am interested in having with you.
Thanks, Trespoax.
ETA: Also, KoM - there are a lot of saints. Some of them were pretty out there. Not much would surprise me.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: But the Chinese still appreciate old ideas.
Well, old Chinese ideas. Christianity from their viewpoint is like neither old OR Chinese.
quote:I could easily see groups like Yi Guan Dao springing up all over China. While they are not strictly speaking Christian, they have no foibles with kidnapping the ideas Jesus uttered, slapping a seal of approval on the ones they like, and saying he was a sage.
Well, yeah.
Even in the West you will have your new agers and your hippies which will try almost anything. Even your Richard Gere and Steven Seagals. Chinese folk religion is if anything even more accommodating in this regard.
But this is neither impressive from my benchmark, nor does it seem to fulfill Mal's benchmark that Christianity is the "meat and potatoes" to the other religions "rice and beans" or "tofu."
If the latter was true, you would expect something a whole lot more compelling.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Armoth, it is fine that you think that is true for your religion. It is demonstrably not true for mine. Many people who dissented with a particular teaching of the Church at the time were later considered heroes of the Church - even saints. That is how our religion grows and gets better.
Does Christianity put forth a set of beliefs that all Christians believe? All Catholics, at least, believe? Do they claim to represent God's will? Or do they have suggested beliefs? Or are there some that you must believe and some that are merely suggested?
If I believe a lot of things in common with Christianity, would you consider me a Christian?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What things? Is Christ central to your understanding of God? Do you try to follow the teachings of Christ?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
No. But I believe in the 10 commandments. In the love of God. Charity, etc.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I am pretty sure your only a Christian if you believe Jesus died for your sins and came back later and was "saved" thats pretty much the crux of it. If you dont believe that then my currently catholic friend who is as open minded and mellow as you can believe would laugh and say your not a 'real' christian.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: No. But I believe in the 10 commandments. In the love of God. Charity, etc.
Okay. So do a lot of religions. Why would you want to be considered Christian? It isn't particularly descriptive of what you seem to believe.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I don't want to be considered Christian. I'm just putting forth the view that in my own personal labeling (again, to the extent that labeling is useful), I consider orthodoxy to be an essential component of determining who is a member of a religion and who is not.
To me, a Christian is a Christian if they follow the Christian way of interpreting God's will. If there was a religion called intuitism that says that you follow your moral intuition, then you are an intuitist.
If Christianity's only interpretation of God's will is to believe in Christ as the messiah, then great. But if you have to believe in Christ as divine and you do not, are you still a Christian? If you believe in certain Christian doctrines and not others? My understanding of Christianity (or a particular brand) is that they have certain philosophies that they require adherents to believe. If you don't believe them, then I wouldn't label that person a follower of that particular brand.
(This is all philosophically speaking. I understand that oftentimes, a person's self identification as a member of a particular fiath is important, even to me, in labeling).
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: But the Chinese still appreciate old ideas.
Well, old Chinese ideas. Christianity from their viewpoint is like neither old OR Chinese.
quote:I could easily see groups like Yi Guan Dao springing up all over China. While they are not strictly speaking Christian, they have no foibles with kidnapping the ideas Jesus uttered, slapping a seal of approval on the ones they like, and saying he was a sage.
Well, yeah.
Even in the West you will have your new agers and your hippies which will try almost anything. Even your Richard Gere and Steven Seagals. Chinese folk religion is if anything even more accommodating in this regard.
But this is neither impressive from my benchmark, nor does it seem to fulfill Mal's benchmark that Christianity is the "meat and potatoes" to the other religions "rice and beans" or "tofu."
If the latter was true, you would expect something a whole lot more compelling.
Well our last few posts grew out of a misunderstanding on my part of your words. I was never in Mal's side of the court regarding Christianity being meat and potatoes while everything else is religion lite. But then again, I'm a member of a small sect of Christianity that thinks everybody else got it wrong, but they are nice people for trying.
Interestingly enough, if Christianity actually succeeded in converting the entire world before Christ came again I would start to think it was doing something wrong.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Armoth, I am not sure what you are referring to as "moral intuition" and how you think it applies to me.
There is quite a broad variation in what Christians believe. Much broader than what you might imagine.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
Armoth, what do conservative or reform jews say when you have this type of discussion with them? (genuinely interested)
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I don't. I respect their beliefs, but I don't consider it Judaism. I consider them to be Jews because Orthodox Judaism defines Judaism as having a Jewish mother.
I would not consider a self-identifying Conservative or Reform Jew as Jewish if their mother were not.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Armoth, You belong to a religion that regards following the rules as the primary function and that regards these rules as pretty well known. Other religions that don't have these beliefs are obviously going to have a wider leniency when it comes to what members in good standing can do or believe.
I think the disconnect is that other people don't hold the same view of religion as you do, specifically on those two points.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Armoth, let me try something here:
Let's say that what is required to be considered a Christian is an adherence to certain beliefs. Would it make sense, then, for me to apply that standard to your religion and say that adherence to certain beliefs are what is required to be Jewish?
Of course it doesn't. You define your religion how you will; I will do the same.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Is there a distinction between a religion and a philosophy? Often times you hear of Eastern Philosophy and western religion. I didn't intend to offend the non-christian with my meat and potatoes analogy and perhaps many converts of a newly freed nation would do so out of rebellion. Like a rebellious teenager recently released from the shackles of forced belief systems. Maybe I'm stereotyping the likes of Steven Segal and David Carridine, but I can't help but feel they are complete posers. The type of people we've all known in our lives, one year there goth, the next their punk, the next their wearing cowboy hats...flavor of the day.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
That's probably true.
I think one of the reasons I stick to that form of labeling is that it is really hard to talk religion with someone who has to tell me from the get-go which beliefs they subscribe to and which they do not. It is easier for me to say - oh, Christian, cool, and check off their beliefs in my brain.
But maybe the convenience of labeling things that way is outweighed by the fact that so many people don't see faith that way.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Let's say that what is required to be considered a Christian is an adherence to certain beliefs. Would it make sense, then, for me to apply that standard to your religion and say that adherence to certain beliefs are what is required to be Jewish?
Of course it doesn't. You define your religion how you will; I will do the same.
Consider a person who says "I believe that Jesus was a prophet but not divine, and did not rise from the dead; that Mohammad had a true revelation from the archangel Gabriel; that it is necessary to pray five times a day, fast during a certain season, and profess one's submission to Allah; and I am a Christian." Can we agree that, firstly, there exists a fact of the matter, so that this person is either Christian or not; and secondly, that he is mistaken?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I am not arguing that there is a fact of the matter - that a person is a Christian or isn't.
My point is that I have a way of labeling, and I think that most people should/or do have one that is similar. (The reason I jumped in is because it seemed KoM had a similar way of labeling, and because I remember that Kmbboots unique beliefs made it difficult to know where she stood in a religious discussion.
So I'm not trying to define. If someone wants to define themselves as a Christian, that is cool, but I may not consider them as such, and it shouldn't matter to them.
In KoM's example - I would not consider him a Christian, even though he himself professes to be one.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: That's probably true.
I think one of the reasons I stick to that form of labeling is that it is really hard to talk religion with someone who has to tell me from the get-go which beliefs they subscribe to and which they do not. It is easier for me to say - oh, Christian, cool, and check off their beliefs in my brain.
But maybe the convenience of labeling things that way is outweighed by the fact that so many people don't see faith that way.
Indeed. There is enough variety that labels are usually going to be somewhat misleading without further clarification.
The person in KoM's example should have an interesting story.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I don't. I respect their beliefs, but I don't consider it Judaism. I consider them to be Jews because Orthodox Judaism defines Judaism as having a Jewish mother.
I would not consider a self-identifying Conservative or Reform Jew as Jewish if their mother were not.
Is a self-identifying Orthodox Jew a Jew if his/her mother was not?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The atheists are the rarity in the human condition and to answer the questions about the religious human condition we should focus the lens on the oddity of the atheist and what sets them apart.
What's wrong with you? I mean, really, what's wrong with you?
No offense to the atheists out there. I'm trying to keep it on a level of overall religious belief or the inherent belief in God of the vast majority of the human population. We could get into doctrinal details and go around and around - even within faiths, IE Protestant - Catholic or Shia - Sunni this is a never ending struggle, albeit in my opinion more political than religious.
My church often studies and quotes important figures of Judaism, Chatholisism and even Islam. I'm not Lutheran yet hold a high regard for Martin Luther, etc. I prefer my particular church since it acknowledges what these other faiths have contributed to ours. They are our grangfathers, uncles and cousins, one family. Strangely, most Christians, including myself, believe that Jews are the chosen people. Jesus came to save not the Jews but man. I like to view myself simply as a Jew who believes the Messiah has come.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I don't. I respect their beliefs, but I don't consider it Judaism. I consider them to be Jews because Orthodox Judaism defines Judaism as having a Jewish mother.
I would not consider a self-identifying Conservative or Reform Jew as Jewish if their mother were not.
Is a self-identifying Orthodox Jew a Jew if his/her mother was not?
No. Why should it make a difference if they self-identify as an Orthodox Jew?
When a person attaches a label, it is by his own beliefs, not the beliefs of others. Should I consider you to be the President of all humanity if you claim that you are?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I am not arguing that there is a fact of the matter - that a person is a Christian or isn't.
This looks ambiguous to me. Are you not arguing against this proposition, or are you not arguing for it?
I understand that Christianity has fuzzy boundaries. But I insist that there is a boundary, and that it is not self-identification.
I note that I did not claim kmb doesn't believe in the resurrection; rather I asked whether it is so, and asserted that a disbelief would make her a non-Christian in any useful classification scheme. I also asserted (and continue to do so) that she is not a Christian on the different grounds that she doesn't believe anything, in the sense of expecting anything to happen differently. "God (or the Universe) is love"; very fine, so what? What would happen differently if the god were not love? You might as well assert that the fimbul is wakalixes; you haven't said anything. You've just made a tribal noise that affiliates you with the god-believer tribe, liberal-suburbia division. Which is very useful for the social aspects, but ultimately no more meaningful than a chimpanzee's flinging of feces that marks a pack boundary.
Mal, did you intend to respond to my questions on the previous page?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The atheists are the rarity in the human condition and to answer the questions about the religious human condition we should focus the lens on the oddity of the atheist and what sets them apart.
What's wrong with you? I mean, really, what's wrong with you?
I like to view myself simply as a Jew who believes the Messiah has come.
I guess it's an answer...
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I don't. I respect their beliefs, but I don't consider it Judaism. I consider them to be Jews because Orthodox Judaism defines Judaism as having a Jewish mother.
I would not consider a self-identifying Conservative or Reform Jew as Jewish if their mother were not.
Is a self-identifying Orthodox Jew a Jew if his/her mother was not?
No. Why should it make a difference if they self-identify as an Orthodox Jew?
When a person attaches a label, it is by his own beliefs, not the beliefs of others. Should I consider you to be the President of all humanity if you claim that you are?
You had earlier said:
"I would not consider a self-identifying Conservative or Reform Jew as Jewish if their mother were not." (my bolding) instead of:
'I would not consider a self-identifying Jew as Jewish if their mother were not,'
so I was curious if this definition could be side-stepped (in your view) by living strictly according to Jewish orthodoxy.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
There are fuzzy boundaries in this conversation. Semantics used in politics and religion. Maybe someday they'll develop a crossover cable so people can directly connect and understand each other, not by each person's internal dictionary or attempt to spin the words, but my intended meaning.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
While we wait for that happy day, perhaps you'd consider doing your bit for clear communications by responding to questions asked of you?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
KoM, without going into why the divinity/humanity of Jesus is, historically such an issue, or the politics of the fourth century, or why the Nicene creed emphasized what it did compared to the Apostles creed and so forth, I will just say that I find too much concern over who is "in" and who is out to be, well...unchristian.
You might, if you really wanted to learn about some of this stuff, read Garry Wills's Why I am a Catholic.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... I was never in Mal's side of the court regarding Christianity being meat and potatoes while everything else is religion lite. But then again, I'm a member of a small sect of Christianity that thinks everybody else got it wrong, but they are nice people for trying.
Ah, I guess you can understand if I'm a bit on the fence as to which is "better"
In the context of this conversation, I mostly only have problems with the former as a way of modelling what is actually going on in the world. The consequences to the latter are a bit more opaque to me.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Christ is certainly central to Christianity and I'm quite sure there are many Christians who struggle with the resurrection, the immaculate conception, etc. Having an internal struggle with one's faith does not exclude you from that faith. I'm sure there are homosexual Christians and plenty of alcoholic Christians who struggle with and choose to ignore aspects of their faith. Fortunately, we are all flawed and can be forgiven.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
catholic = universal
Catholic is a Christian denomination headed by the Pope. Throughout history politician have hijacked meaningful words, ie progressives, conservatives, etc.
I view Catholics as part of the catholic faith.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And there are many Christians who do not have to ignore aspects of their faith in order to be (or approve of others being) homosexual.
For your "homework", mal, I would recommend The Good Book by Peter Gomes.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, no. If you commit the sin against the Holy Spirit, you can not be forgiven. Says so right in the gospels. Possibly you're not certain what the sin against the Holy Spirit consists of; that's not unusual, people have been uncertain of it for 2000 years. But recent research has clarified the mystery; theres a part of the apocrypha that were thrown out for being too obscure, which is not surprising, since expecting people in 363 CE to know what an internet forum is, was a bit optimistic. In fact, the sin against the Holy Spirit consists of repeatedly ignoring direct questions on discussion forums.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Cute
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
"catholic" was replaced with "Christian". Even discussions within this post about who is or isn't a Jew point out what happens when a faith starts to expel people who have varying degrees of being a good member of the faith.
The Catholic church once was the catholic church. Once Christians start to eat their own: charge fees for forgiveness, use the faith to ensure political power or decide you're not a good/real Christian because of A or B, they stop being Christ like and new denominations sprout up within the catholic faith, none perfect-all flawed because man is imperfect and flawed.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
That is just a tad oversimplified.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Oh well. Only another self-deluder, then, unwilling to critically examine his own ideas an inch beyond the point of discomfort. C'est la vie, c'est la theisme.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I've critically examined my beliefs yet I understand that others who critically examine theirs may have a slightly or completely different conclusion. It's between them and God.
You may have hoped or assumed that this right wing Christian would be more intolerant.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
No, I'd hoped you were interested in learning why you believe as you do, or perhaps even changing your mind - the two great purposes of discussion - and would continue the conversation we were having.
You, on the other hand, appear to have believed or assumed that this atheist could be intimidated by invoking that shibboleth of the left, tolerance. I do not consider tolerance a virtue, being in fact quite intolerant of sloppy thinking and silly beliefs myself. As far as I'm concerned, you do not have a right to any factual belief you can't back with evidence, and had I the power I would enforce that with guns. Tolerance is considered a good thing in the west because the Christian churches fought each other into stalemate in a disastrous civil war, and now enforce the resulting truce of exhaustion with all the weapons at their command. Thus their rent-seekers can spend the money they scam out of their parishioners on themselves instead of weapons. In other words, they don't have the courage of their convictions, and malign those who do.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
While tolerance may lead to some unfortunate results, such as sloppy thinking, I do think that is merely a side effect of a much greater benefit that tolerance affords.
We, as humans, are ultimately flawed. We are ridiculously biased by our own biological predispositions, environment, culture, faith, particular syndromes developed through relationships with our siblings, etc. Tolerance allows for productive coexistence by empathically acknowledging that other people make mistakes.
I, personally, reserve judgment when I believe someone is wrong, because I have no indication over whether that person is evil, or merely mistaken.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Your adjective shows the disconnect: Making a mistake on fundamental issues such as the existence of gods is not 'mere'. It is an enormous and egregious error. Usually the error is moral, more rarely it is an error in reasoning; either way, it must be corrected as soon as possible.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Funny. I find the disconnect between us on your emphasis of the quality of mistake. I see mistake as such an inherent part of the human condition, and the deep flaw of humanity as a major stumbling block that demands tolerance.
I think that each person is responsible to use morality and reason to overcome such a heavy bias, but since the task is so unique to each individual, no one can judge how his fellow human being is untangling himself. Hence, tolerance.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
A tradition of tolerance is one protection against the mindless mob. That tolerance permits the continued existence of falsehoods is an unfortunate, but unavoidable, by-product.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Christ is certainly central to Christianity and I'm quite sure there are many Christians who struggle with the resurrection, the immaculate conception, etc.
Just curious, because this is a common confusion, but you do know that the Immaculate Conception refers to Mary, not Jesus, yes? That is, the specific grace of preservation from Original Sin uniquely granted to Mary because she, in the eternal "now" of chairos, gave her fiat already?
Also, just out of curiosity: what denomination do you identify with?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:No, I'd hoped you were interested in learning why you believe as you do, or perhaps even changing your mind - the two great purposes of discussion - and would continue the conversation we were having.
Which of these two purposes is your purpose for holding this conversation? To change your mind? Or to learn why you believe as you do?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
If someone engages in a discussion to have their mind changed, they've probably already changed it and lack the courage to act. When I engage in a conversation with someone, I tend to be more interested in what they believe and why they believe what they do. Debate is a different issue.
If I were searching for self understaning, I wouldn't find it in another person's opinion, but I might through the understanding of others. I learned the most about myself after leaving a small town where I was surrounded by people just like me. If I didn't want my comfort zone challenged, I wouldn't return to Hatrack.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:
quote:Or, more simply, if I came to the conclusion that the most basic moral values taught by my religion were false (like "love thy neighbor"), I'd have to reject the religion.
Sorry to come back to this - I realize the conversation has probably moved on - but I haven't had access.
Anyway, can you suggest a scenario whereby you might come to such a conclusion?
For instance, imagine I belonged to a religion where the moral belief system relied upon a fundamental principle that it was always wrong to eat animals of any kind. And then imagine I had a child with a medical condition who had to eat meat daily or he'd die. That might lead me to observe that eating meat couldn't be always wrong. In that case, if not eating meat were so fundamental to the religion that I couldn't imagine it being true without that moral principle, then I'd have to reject the religion.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Sure,
If eventually I realized I was deceiving myself all these years and discovered I was actually a homosexual in a heterosexual relationship to satisfy religious pressures, I would probably switch to Episcopalian.
On the other hand,
If I were a king and wanted an annulment to produce an heir, not knowing that syphilis had sterilized me, I might create my own church with all the same tenants, except the one that inconvenienced me.
Even the Catholic church makes exceptions for extreme circumstances. Their policy on contraception is clear but my mother was had her tubes tied because the doctor told her she probably couldn't survive another childbirth...and it was cleared through the church.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Mal,
Do you see religion as an expression of God's will? Or do you see it as man's best guess, in which case, when it violates your moral intuition, you reject the religious principles that contradict.
Say you knew, for a fact, it was God's will not to have homosexual intercourse. In the above hypo, would you still switch?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Maybe my sarcasm didn't come through. I believe it is an expressions of God's will but people have tainted organized religion with politics and personal ambition. I can't see a situation where I would actually reject any of my current religious principles but I accept that others might have different principles. Just as I disagree with the living and breathing concept of the US Constitution, I believe religious beliefs shouldn't often bend to the social/political climate of the day unless the church is corrupt and abusing the faith for other reasons. Most other Christian denominations sprouted during these times. I make a distinction between the universal christian church and denominations that have labels. I believe when Martin Luther left the Catholic faith, he didn't change or abandon the faith rather took it with him. Similarly, when governments are overthrown for being tyrannical, that country doesn't cease to exist but is returned to its proper path. When viewing different religions one could argue the fewer amendments/changes they've experienced over time is evidence of them being closer to the truth. If my church had straw polls or taught that morality was relative, I would realize it wasn't a real church at all but simply a place to receive self affirmation.
[ September 24, 2009, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:If I were a king and wanted an annulment to produce an heir, not knowing that syphilis had sterilized me, I might create my own church with all the same tenants, except the one that inconvenienced me.
There is a difference between actually changing your mind about what is wrong and merely pretending for selfish reasons that what you know is wrong is right, though.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I completely agree but you could rationalize your selfish reasons into what you perceive as an honest change of heart.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
TENETS.
Tenants rent.
You have all been warned! Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: ... Say you knew, for a fact, it was God's will not to have homosexual intercourse.
What goes on in God's bedroom is no business of mine.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I completely agree but you could rationalize your selfish reasons into what you perceive as an honest change of heart.
I agree that this is something to avoid. Careful consideration, study, and prayer are essential when dissenting from official Church teaching. Also, disagreement with certain tenets* is not always a change of heart; it can be a long and deeply held moral position rather than the result of changing circumstances or new information or insight.
*If you disagree with tenants, you should evict them. Unless they are right.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Or your state's laws do not allow for eviction without more cause.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Thanks for the correction. I forget this is a writer's forum. I'm open minded enough to learn spelling and grammar from you. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Which of these two purposes is your purpose for holding this conversation? To change your mind? Or to learn why you believe as you do?
The latter.
quote:I learned the most about myself after leaving a small town where I was surrounded by people just like me. If I didn't want my comfort zone challenged, I wouldn't return to Hatrack.
Why did you clam up completely when I asked you questions of the form "If X, would you change your mind?"
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
When I learn X about others, it tends make me more clearly see the Y in myself. If the spirit of Odin appeared in my living room I might have doubts.
Of course there are things that could shake my faith. I can clearly imagine something terrible happening to my wife and children that might rock my foundation...it's human nature.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
And yet terrible things happen to people all the time. That should not alter your beliefs about what's actually true.
You are not answering the questions I put. Why are you being so evasive?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Ask me again so I don't have to go back and try to figure out the exact question you are referring to.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Why do I have faith in Jesus? I believe the eyewitness testimony that has been written down.
quote:Christianity spreads of its own accord, even under threat of death and persecution.
quote:if I lived in Iran I would probably be a Muslim and not be satisfied.
So, summarising, you have three main reasons for your belief; first, that the biblical accounts are true; second, that Christianity is expanding without state intervention; third, that Moslems and presumably other kinds of theists have a 'hunger' which would be satisfied if they were Christians. Is that a fair rephrasing?
These reasons are, as you must well know, utterly unconvincing to anyone not already a Christian; but I won't attack them just at the moment. Instead I'll repeat my previous question. Suppose you were shown that the Gospels are matched by equally well-attested accounts of miracles in other traditions. Would this undermine the first pillar of your belief? Then suppose you were shown that Christianity was in fact retreating, or that its expansion required force, or that all things equal it is atheism that expands of its own accord. Would your faith be weakened? And third, if I were able to attach a satisfaction-O-meter to the heads of Christians, Moslems, and atheists, and show no statistically significant difference, would you conclude differently?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
The first quote supports my belief. The next two are just opinions I hold that aren't integral to my faith. I believe that there are many cases of miracles, real or imagined that have nothing to do with Jesus. I'm sure God was interested in all mankind prior to the life of Jesus and there are many miracles in the Bible performed by others. In regards to the Muslim faith, that too can be tracked to Isaac and Ishmael. God promised Ishmael a kingdom of his own and they certainly have it today. The fact that one religion expands under oppression and another expands under freedom is affirming but not a pillar of my belief. The satisfaction meter is a nice idea..the kingdom of Ishmael is definitely not going to be satisfied until the kingdom of Isaac is destroyed, including the Christians they spawned. Atheists might very well have a more satisfying life. Unhindered by petty moral codes, one could live this life to the fullest. Not suggesting atheists are amoral, but things like drugs, promiscuity, greed, etc without the burden of guilt would be fun. Hey, live life to the fullest and enjoy it, it is all you have. I always had the most fun the last week of summer, knowing it was going to end soon.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
All right. So we seem to come down to the veracity of the Gospels, no? But this doesn't really help with the question I was asking. On what grounds do you believe the Gospels, and not the accounts of Joseph Smith's golden plates? The gospels are not eyewitness accounts; they were written three or four decades after the fact, and at that the earliest copies we have are a century or two later even than this. You surely know how plastic memory is over a span of decades; an 'eyewitness' account this old would not stand up in a modern court if it were attesting that someone stole 10 bucks from the till, much less a crucified person arising from the dead! Joseph Smith's witnesses, on the other hand, gave their accounts within days of the events they testified to. On the face of it they would seem much more reliable. You must have some reason for believing the one and not the other; what is it?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
The Book of Mormon SHOULD be more convincing since it is modern and SHOULD have more proof. Being so new why haven't the numerous revisions been tracked and were is the original? I have a problem believing in individuals who run off to the wilderness and come back with a great revelation. David Koresh and Jim Jones did that too and they too were running from polygamy laws. Jim Jones collected 900 followers in short order and people witness big foot and aliens all the time.
No doubt old eyewitnesses accounts wouldn't stand up in court and revisionist history has been a problem for all civilizations. We see it today. The bulk of the new testament are letters written to other communities from Paul. The gospels are four accounts that back one another up, each written by different people in different places. It does take a level of faith to believe the oral history was passed on faithfully until written down. Without computers, pens, paper, photography, etc and massive illiteracy, I doubt the oral history was altered that much. Like songs that can be passed on from generation to generation in tact - Psalms. I worry most about compromised meaning due to translation from one language to the next. Biblical revisions usually are not due to content, rather the correction of translation mistakes. Old depictions of Moses showed him with horns because of a translation error.
I'm sure none of my answers will satisfy you...there is faith involved. I'll admit, no faith would stand up in a court of law. If the Supreme Court ruled there is no God, I doubt a single person would leave their church. If even one link in the chain requires faith, then there will be those who will pry at it.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Thanks King,
You made me think about it in a different way, you made me wonder about the family tree of the faith. As Christians (including all the more recent branches in their timeline) came from Jews - Muslims and Jews came from Isaac and Ishmael. What was before? I'm sure as Protestants argue with Catholics about who is maintaining the original faith, so do the Jews and Muslims, but is there some obscure tribe living in the desert that still lives strictly by the earliest laws. Having rejected the political split of Jew and Muslim? Would Abraham call himself a Jew or a Muslim? He probably didn't have a label, only a God. It is one big dysfunctional family.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:is there some obscure tribe living in the desert that still lives strictly by the earliest laws.
Orthodox Jews would, as I understand it, insist that this is them; IIRC, they believe that the laws they follow are the laws given to man after the Flood.
They may believe that, Pre-Flood, there were different laws. I'm not familiar with what legend says on the subject.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Abraham was a contemporary of Noah and Noah was a contemporary of Adam. There is a lot of Jewish philosophy that believes that till Abraham, people believed in God - they couldn't question creation, having been too close to it. However, instead of serving God, they strayed and served intermediaries.
It was Abraham who was able to come close to the one God through his observations of the physical world.
Also, God gave the 7 Noahide laws to Noah and his children. So there was religion until Abraham.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Not suggesting atheists are amoral, but things like drugs, promiscuity, greed, etc without the burden of guilt would be fun.
As a side note: I think this quite misunderstands the actual appeal of atheism -- which is not that atheists are free to act without guilt, but that atheists are free to understand where their guilt comes from.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:is there some obscure tribe living in the desert that still lives strictly by the earliest laws.
Orthodox Jews would, as I understand it, insist that this is them; IIRC, they believe that the laws they follow are the laws given to man after the Flood.
They may believe that, Pre-Flood, there were different laws. I'm not familiar with what legend says on the subject.
To clarify there are four periods:
1) Adam in the Garden - his law not to eat the fruit.
2) pre-flood - The talmud discusses a number of laws pre-flood including the prohibitions against stealing, sexual immoralities, and a prohibition from eating meat (that no longer exists)
3)The 7 Noahide Laws - the laws that God gave to Noah and his sons that Jews believe apply to non-Jews till today. (Judaism does not believe non-Jews need to convert, only that they follow the 7 Noahide laws).
4) The Torah - which was given to Moses and Israel
(Some commentators say that the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) kept certain/all commandments that were later formally given in the Torah
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: There are fuzzy boundaries in this conversation. Semantics used in politics and religion. Maybe someday they'll develop a crossover cable so people can directly connect and understand each other, not by each person's internal dictionary or attempt to spin the words, but my intended meaning.
Or maybe one day you'll engage honestly in a conversation rather than dancing around the points you just don't feel like dealing with. I think a critical difficulty here is that you are lazy. That is, in fact, the fatal problem in dealing with you.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: God gave the 7 Noahide laws to Noah and his children.
No, they were given earlier. They were restated again after the flood.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, technically there is no God, so... yeah.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: God gave the 7 Noahide laws to Noah and his children.
No, they were given earlier. They were restated again after the flood.
That makes sense to me. Do you have the source for that?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Recent discussion of the Torah.org forums. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
mal:
quote:The Book of Mormon SHOULD be more convincing since it is modern and SHOULD have more proof. Being so new why haven't the numerous revisions been tracked and were is the original?
Have you read the Book of Mormon? Just curious. Further, why would there be numerous revisions? From what I understand the current version is nearly identical from the original manuscript.
quote:Is there some obscure tribe living in the desert that still lives strictly by the earliest laws.
Interestingly enough, it sounds like you are talking about Mormons. And if you understand the scriptures, you'd realize that while some aspects of the gospel have taken time to fully grasp, the general format of the atonement, savior, etc were all in place from the beginning, but because of apostasy they have been repeatedly lost.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:you'd realize that while some aspects of the gospel have taken time to fully grasp, the general format of the atonement, savior, etc were all in place from the beginning
That does, of course, depend heavily on how you choose to filter and interpret those legends.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:you'd realize that while some aspects of the gospel have taken time to fully grasp, the general format of the atonement, savior, etc were all in place from the beginning
That does, of course, depend heavily on how you choose to filter and interpret those legends.
I'm sure you meant historical events rather than legends. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I'm sure none of my answers will satisfy you...there is faith involved. I'll admit, no faith would stand up in a court of law.
So, now we're back to faith. Well then, why do you have faith? You believe things for which, you admit, the evidence is unconvincing. Why? You would not do so in any other context, if it were at all important. I take it you would not consider your faith unimportant; but if this is the level of checking you apply to it, how can you argue otherwise? If someone tells you it's raining outside, you might well believe them without checking, because what do you care? But if you're going out, you would likely stick your head out the door to see for yourself. Yet you apply a lower standard when someone tells you of miracles!
You said that you had been an agnostic in the past; something must have convinced you to stop. You appear to admit that it wasn't any kind of evidence. Why would you make such a leap of faith?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:
quote:Which of these two purposes is your purpose for holding this conversation? To change your mind? Or to learn why you believe as you do?
The latter.
If that's the case, then I would suggest approaching the discussion in a different way. Instead of insisting that everyone religious answer your questions in complete accordance with all the assumptions you make about the world and epistemology, take a look at religion from the prespective of the religious, using the assumptions held by the religious. In that way, you can determine which basic observations and assumptions you make about the world which result in your beliefs differing so significantly from the religious folk on this forum.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:take a look at religion from the prespective of the religious, using the assumptions held by the religious
Assumption 1: God exists.
Wow. That was a short trip. Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: If this is directed at me, it misses the mark. It's quite clear that Afghanistan, if allowed to go its own way, would be a cesspool, especially for women. Its people would be much better off with freedom from religion, as indeed would the US.
I agree with the first point, but but the rest is neither obvious or accurate to anyone but yourself. You should know that by now. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Technically, it is obvious and accurate to me.
So that would be at least two people rather than just himself.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Three.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Fourth.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think it's accurate, but I don't think it's necessarily obvious. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'm not so sure if you excised religion from Afghanistan that the sexism, and totalitarianism would also depart. There's a good chance that with such a major shake up of all social morays you could then setup an atmosphere that treats women as equals, or promotes individual liberty.
But I can concede that freedom from their religion currently would be a major improvement over the current situation, no doubt in my mind. Having said that, I still feel that many of issues at play there are more fundamental than organized religion.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Only the first point was intended to be obvious, as should be clear from the language. The second one is merely accurate.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
They do not need freedom from their religion, they need freedom from those who distort their faith and impose their distorted view on others. As others have pointed out, there are countries where Islam is not a political, totalitarian tool for Bigots. This distortion is common to Arab Muslims. If the militant Sharia types ever managed to wipe out the infidel Jew and Christian, they would then turn their sights on the bad/week Muslims. In fact, they already do in their spare time.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: They do not need freedom from their religion, they need freedom from those who distort their faith
What criteria would you use to determine what version of a faith (in this context, Islam) should be preferred i.e. how do you separate out the distortions from the 'truth'?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
The distortions that lead to the persecution of others. You should be free to believe whatever you want as long as you allow others to do the same.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
How do you tell what a distortion is?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
The persecution of others. If there is an actual religion that kills non-believers, the world should band together and wipe that religion out of existence. This is the only type of religious persecution I see as being just. A religion of persecution deserves persecution.
If you would've quoted the entire sentence you would have your answer...".....and impose their distorted views on others"
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, I wouldn't have. You said it only applied to those who distort their faith. If someone imposed a true faith on somebody else, your statement would not apply. The language you use to communicate is getting in the way of communicating your point if you think what you said before is equivalent to what you are saying now.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Good point. I will try to be more precise in my language. Distortion is a relative matter of perspective. Even peaceful Muslims rarely condemn the violent ones, so I can't even presume they view it as a distortion.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
The Moslems are a bit of a distraction; you need to free your own mind before you worry about others. Why do you have faith? What decided you to stop being agnostic?
(I note in passing that I am generally quite skeptical when Christians tell me that they were agnostics or atheists in the past. Apart from plain liars who think this will give them credibility, they usually mean "I disliked some particular doctrine", "I wanted to annoy my parents", or "sermons are really boring" rather than "I decided to base my beliefs on evidence, and found none for Christianity." But this has nothing to do with the question at hand.)
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Even peaceful Muslims rarely condemn the violent ones, so I can't even presume they view it as a distortion.
I was under the impression that peaceful Muslims regularly condemn violent Muslims.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Even peaceful Muslims rarely condemn the violent ones, so I can't even presume they view it as a distortion.
I was under the impression that peaceful Muslims regularly condemn violent Muslims.
just a few of many examples, there if you look.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:
quote:Or, more simply, if I came to the conclusion that the most basic moral values taught by my religion were false (like "love thy neighbor"), I'd have to reject the religion.
Sorry to come back to this - I realize the conversation has probably moved on - but I haven't had access.
Anyway, can you suggest a scenario whereby you might come to such a conclusion?
For instance, imagine I belonged to a religion where the moral belief system relied upon a fundamental principle that it was always wrong to eat animals of any kind. And then imagine I had a child with a medical condition who had to eat meat daily or he'd die. That might lead me to observe that eating meat couldn't be always wrong. In that case, if not eating meat were so fundamental to the religion that I couldn't imagine it being true without that moral principle, then I'd have to reject the religion.
A few points:
1)I had originally asked: ``Can you give an example of something that would falsify your religious faith?" Could you answer as well ``Can you give an example of something that would falsify your faith in the existence of god?"
2)With regard to your example: do many religions have a completely concrete behavioral requisite central to their practice? Anyway, fairly central to Christianity is the notion that there is only one god, and you shouldn't worship anything else. So if a kidnapper took your child and then told you that he would only return the child if you worshiped a false idol, would you conclude that worshiping a false idol is not always wrong, and so leave the religion?
3)I was asking specifically about your religious faith; can you provide such an example e.g. how "love thy neighbor" as a moral principle might be falsified?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
1) No can't think of an example that would falsify my religious faith or belief in the existence of God. Earlier I suggested that events in life could cause me to doubt...I believe the example I gave was if something tragic happened to my family. I would certainly react in the is God just? manner etc. etc.
2) Worshiping is not just the act of kneeling and mumbling words. If a kidnapper had my family ransom unless I knelt before a golden cow and recited their words, I would. My children put their hands over their hearts and say the pledge of allegiance in school, but I do not view this as flag worship. Worship is integral to what is in the heart. I'm quite sure there are many people who go to church every week, just-because and don't actively engage in any manner other than an understanding of "you're suppose to go". As a child attending Catholic mass, I stood, knelt and recited the words but only thought about what I would do after church and wondered how much longer the service would be.
3) I'm not quite sure how this could happen. If any of my moral principles caused harm to others (other than perhaps offense) or otherwise lead to the persecution of other people, I would question their validity. IE, kill the infidel, castrate the homosexual, bomb an abortion clinic, etc. Obviously at times moral principles could be at odds with one another and one might have to weigh the importance. Even Jesus did this..."Keep the Sabbath holy"...but it's ok to save an animal stuck in a field on the Sabbath. It is a very old argument, one that was tried against Jesus for healing on the Sabbath.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:I believe the example I gave was if something tragic happened to my family.
But not when tragic things happen to other families? Even families that practice your same religion?
Do you feel God has an obligation to protect you from tragedy, but not his other followers?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I think mal is saying that if a tragedy struck him, he believes that he would doubt, but he also believes that he would be wrong to do so. This is consistent: If the problem of evil does not trouble your faith in the first place, then it should not trouble it when evil strikes close to home. It also seems psychologically realistic: There are not all that many people who deconvert on the grounds of the problem of evil in the abstract, but people do occasionally see family members die of cancer and realise that prayer doesn't work.
That said, this doesn't address the fundamental problem: Mal, why do you have faith? You admit it's not evidence. How dare you go about and assert a fact based on nothing but your unfounded decision to believe?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well, KoM, how do you?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I'm sure you understand the difference in the evidence required for the assertions "X exists" and "X does not exist". So why are you playing dumb?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Other than to annoy you?
Because those are your rules of evidence and they don't apply to this. Surely, you understand that. (Goodness knows I have said it often enough.) So why are you playing dumb?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Because those are your rules of evidence and they don't apply to this.
I don't see where KoM has demanded that mal adhere to any particular evidentiary standard. He has simply asked that mal actually explain what his evidence is. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Oh right, I forgot who I was talking to for a moment. Never mind. It's kind of hard to remember that you deliberately disavow sanity so that you can profess your belief in faith. However, although you have abandoned adult responsibility for your beliefs, I retain some hope that mal hasn't. So if you would please run along now and not bother the grownups?
Mal, please note that this is the logical end product of faith: People who assert that they will believe whatever they choose, evidence be damned. The 'reasoning' kmb is applying here is that, although there is no evidence in favour of her god's existence, there is no absolute proof against it, so therefore she is free to "choose to believe".
You will note that she is curiously selective on this; she doesn't "choose to believe" in leprechauns, for example, although the same 'reasoning' could certainly be applied. The contrary view, which I apply to everything and she applies to everything-except-gods, is that if you have no evidence for a thing's existence, you should not believe in that thing. Would you like to state which of these views you hold?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The 'reasoning' kmb is applying here is that, although there is no evidence in favour of her god's existence, there is no absolute proof against it, so therefore she is free to "choose to believe".
To be fair, she also believes that choosing to believe in God makes her happier than not choosing to believe in God, whereas she presumably doesn't feel that a belief in leprechauns has as positive a value.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
WHAT!? HERESY! THOU LEPRECHAUNS SHALL SMITE THEE OH SMITTEN THOU!
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:1)I had originally asked: ``Can you give an example of something that would falsify your religious faith?" Could you answer as well ``Can you give an example of something that would falsify your faith in the existence of god?"
2)With regard to your example: do many religions have a completely concrete behavioral requisite central to their practice? Anyway, fairly central to Christianity is the notion that there is only one god, and you shouldn't worship anything else. So if a kidnapper took your child and then told you that he would only return the child if you worshiped a false idol, would you conclude that worshiping a false idol is not always wrong, and so leave the religion?
3)I was asking specifically about your religious faith; can you provide such an example e.g. how "love thy neighbor" as a moral principle might be falsified?
1) No, the existence of God is an unfalsifiable claim by itself. I could find evidence that would lead me to judge it to likely be false, but nothing that would require me by proof to reject it.
2) I'd think most religions have a behavioral component that directly follows from belief in that religion. In your example, if I believed that worshipping other idols was inherently wrong, I don't think that kidnapping would be enough to convince me that the "no worshipping other idols" rule was false. Instead it would just convince me that bizarre exceptions to the rule exist. Single exceptions in situations artificially created to contradict a general moral rule like that don't convince me to reject the moral rule. But natural situations where the moral rule repeatedly leads to a wrong outcome can convince me to reject a moral rule. (This is because I don't think moral rules actually define right and wrong. Rather, they define the wisest way to act given that our limited knowledge prevents us from knowing what truly is right and wrong in any given situation. I could elaborate more on that, but it would be a significant sidetrack...)
Incidently, I do consider belief in one God to be central to my religion, but I don't consider the idea that "worshipping other idols is inherently immoral" to be central to it. In fact, I'm not sure I'd even consider that true. I don't really think Hindu believers are doing something morally wrong by simply worshipping in the way they believe to be right.
3) I actually can't think of a hypothetical realistic situation where "love thy neighbor" would be falsified. I think merely being able to imagine such a situation would be enough to falsify it. This is going to be true with any fundamental moral rule that I actually do accept; the fact that I accept the rule means I don't think there could be any realistic situation where it would turn out false.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If a leprechaun showed up, it would not unduly disturb my worldview.
I don't see how, barring psychological "Big Brother Loves Me" or "There are four lights" kind of trauma, that one could "worship" what one believed to be a false god. Faking worship under duress is not the same as worship. It may be its own sin, but it isn't that.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Oh but so many of you ignore evidence when it comes to the things of man. Which is worse, believing something that lacks evidence or embracing something that has plenty of evidence against it? The government will solve all our problems, they have such a good track record in that regard, don't they?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
You go in circles. That others believe silly things does not relieve you of the responsibility for not doing likewise. In any case, I am not necessarily very much to your left on social and economic questions. Note that many atheists are libertarians, and vice-versa. But this misses the central point: Even if all atheists were communists, their folly in economic questions would be no more than an ad-hom. Either you take responsibility for your own beliefs, or you don't. Which is it?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I take complete responsibility for my own beliefs and I'm a Libertarian despite their position on issues like abortion. My sin is my own and theirs is theirs. I believe homosexuality is immoral but we should not persecute the homosexual. The problem isn't that Christian's persecute, the problem is that others can't accept that a christian believes what they are doing is wrong. My beliefs are mine and yours are yours...believe what you want and have a nice life. I don't scold or criticize my gay neighbor and I don't call you foolish for being an atheist. I have different beliefs but I'm not going to run around telling every atheist he's going to burn in hell. People have a tendency to project their struggles on others, the one's who run around screaming racism, intolerance, etc are often the one's who see race first and are least tolerant of others beliefs. It seems there is a mentality that if one group does not accept the actions of another they are somehow discriminating against that group. Discrimination is not a belief, it's an action. KoM you remind me of the annoying Seventh Day Adventists and Mormons that continually knock on my door to save me from my foolish beliefs.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I take complete responsibility for my own beliefs
Then where's your evidence? Why are you so reluctant to say what convinced you to believe as you do? I assume you did not flip a coin, "Heads God exists, tails I become an atheist". But you have conceded that the evidence you have mentioned is not convincing, and that there's a component of 'faith'. Well, why have faith? Why the Lord Jehovah, and not the Prophet Mohammed? If you cannot base this on evidence, then how are you "taking responsibility" for a faith which - quel surprise! - just happens to match the mainstream of your culture?
And another point: If you believe in your god, and you think that some people will go to hell for their actions (perhaps you are one of those Christian who do not believe this; it's a hypothetical) then how can you present leaving others alone as a virtue? If someone walked over a cliff, believing they could fly, would you watch them go on the grounds that they should be permitted to believe what they liked?
As for discrimination: I did not say a word about it. You keep making these assumptions about what I believe, and you keep missing. Please stop, and address yourself to what I actually write. I am not a strawman left-liberal, and would appreciate you arguing with me, not some combination of Michael Moore, the ACLU at its nuttiest, and the monster from "It Came From Berkeley U".
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
christ returned after he died and told everyone there is life after death. im waiting for an atheist to come back after death and tell me the contrary.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Oh, you're adorable. Here, let me pinch your cheeks and otherwise patronize you, you little cutie.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
no thanks tommy. your snide, sarcastic remark will do fine. greatly appreciated..
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm not sure I was being sarcastic. I think you are adorable, and I was patronizing you. But, yes, I was being snide.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Even I would have been snide.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
If Tom told you he had died and is now back and that the afterlife is just a giant roller derby, would you believe him, or would I have to write a book about it first?
See, *that* was sarcasm.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
KoM,
I had to think about your statement of how I follow a belief that "just happens to be the mainstream of my culture". I believe I've even suggested that societies, ie North Korea, Middle East etc impact the beliefs of the people but there is a difference between state propaganda and religious freedom. I take solace in the fact that my country, my culture was founded by Christian men to make the freest and most productive nation in the history of the world. A nation that has done more good and is more charitable than any other nation on the planet. If I were from Iran, the common culture argument for blind faith might be a strong argument but in this case, it supports the opposite of what you suggest.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
What does any of that have to do with what's true? Taking responsibility for your beliefs does not include "Well, the other people who believe it seem to be doing ok." (We can discuss the religion of the people who wrote the US constitution another time.) Either you have evidence for your position, or you're just another monkey who screams what the alpha male tells him to scream. That the alpha male has managed to gather a lot of nuts and expand the tribal territory does not entitle him to think for you. Do you have evidence, or do you have 'faith'? There is no third position.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
kom. i dont think malanthrop has the evidence you desire nor do i think he is a monkey. most of your comments are condescending to the point of being pathetic. in the case stated above, there is not third positon for you either: do you know god doesnt exist, or do you just believe (or hope or wish) he doesnt? its doubtful you would be so concerned with mal having proof to back his beliefs if you didnt have evidence to support your own claims.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I just want to point out that not believing in the existence of a god is not a positive claim, and thus does not require evidence to be rational. The absence of belief is, for most beliefs, the default state.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
The oldest and most unanswerable questions are: What is true? and What is the meaning of life? I doubt those answers will be found in Hatrack. I've stated repeatedly, there is a component of evidence and a component of faith. I do not intend to go in circles by pointing out that everything in life has a measure of faith. Scientific theories that have been revised or debunked shows the measure of faith in science. Faith that your next paycheck will come before your employer files for bankruptcy and faith that you will survive the commute to work in the morning. I do not know for certain if I will wake up in the morning but I have faith that I will...my confidence in my cardiovascular system is not foolish.
The only things certain in life are death and taxes. Of all things in human history, these two have always been supported by the evidence you seek.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You have, however, mentioned numerous pieces of evidence that, upon prompting, you have failed to provide.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I just want to point out that not believing in the existence of a god is not a positive claim, and thus does not require evidence to be rational. The absence of belief is, for most beliefs, the default state.
I don't think that it is necessary to take a position just because it is the "default" position.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I just want to point out that not believing in the existence of a god is not a positive claim, and thus does not require evidence to be rational. The absence of belief is, for most beliefs, the default state.
I don't think that it is necessary to take a position just because it is the "default" position.
kmbboots, do you agree with this sorting? If so, why?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
How are you defining Judeo-Christian god?
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
I'm open to suggestions. How about, that entity referred to as God in the Bible?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
which Bible?
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
What Bible do orthodox Jews use? That for you. What Bible do Catholics use? That for kmbboots.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that the Bible (OT especially) is a record of the relationship between God and one people. I think that God is bigger than that. I don't think that God is a tribal god. Worshipping Zeus or Apollo or Thor are other ways certain people related to God - less useful ways most of the time, I think, but our way is certainly not without its issues. Being Christian, I believe that Jesus is God incarnate and the best way to relate to God.
ETA: I usually use the New American Bible, but not always.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
It's a bit unclear: are you saying 1)that Zeus was an (inefficient) manifestation of god and therefore, insofar as god exists, Zeus exists or 2)that when people thought they were worshiping Zeus they were actually worshiping God? (in which case you haven't yet said whether or not you think Zeus exists).
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
The absence of belief might be the default state in the sense of a hard drive being wiped clean but not in the case of humanity. Humans have always believed in god/God/gods/spirits, etc. The natural, hence default state, is to believe in something beyond. I doubt it would be too much of a stretch to suggest that 99% of all humans that ever lived had a supernatural belief. 1% cannot be the default state.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The absence of belief might be the default state in the sense of a hard drive being wiped clean but not in the case of humanity. Humans have always believed in god/God/gods/spirits, etc. The natural, hence default state, is to believe in something beyond. I doubt it would be too much of a stretch to suggest that 99% of all humans that ever lived had a supernatural belief. 1% cannot be the default state.
I think a natural human state is to be curious and seek answers. As is making up answers for that which we do not know. Your claim of 99% (which is doubtful) merely shows that we have a propensity to create stories to mask our ignorance.
Unless you're claiming that the entire 99% have been correct in thinking that their god/gods have influenced their belief.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: christ returned after he died and told everyone there is life after death. im waiting for an atheist to come back after death and tell me the contrary.
Oh cool, you can be malanthrop's opening act.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: christ returned after he died and told everyone there is life after death. im waiting for an atheist to come back after death and tell me the contrary.
Oh cool, you can be malanthrop's opening act.
thank you for your permission. that sounds fun. how do i do that?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The natural, hence default...
I certainly don't accept that all natural things are "default." Nor do I necessarily accept that religious belief is actually "natural."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: thank you for your permission. that sounds fun. how do i do that?
It's pretty easy. Just keep making anklebiter-style interjections like that first thing of yours I quoted.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
How else is he supposed to up his post count?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Frisco:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The absence of belief might be the default state in the sense of a hard drive being wiped clean but not in the case of humanity. Humans have always believed in god/God/gods/spirits, etc. The natural, hence default state, is to believe in something beyond. I doubt it would be too much of a stretch to suggest that 99% of all humans that ever lived had a supernatural belief. 1% cannot be the default state.
I think a natural human state is to be curious and seek answers. As is making up answers for that which we do not know. Your claim of 99% (which is doubtful) merely shows that we have a propensity to create stories to mask our ignorance.
Unless you're claiming that the entire 99% have been correct in thinking that their god/gods have influenced their belief.
I agree the natural state is to seek answers. In the absence of scientific answers, belief in the supernatural is understandable. With all our modern science, why do people persist to believe in a higher power? I wouldn't suggest that 99% have been correct in their belief, rather 99% have had an inherent belief in a higher power. Even self proclaimed christians will vehemently disagree about specifics with other christians. Where the vast majority of humans diverge is where their individual hope/interpretation/ideals differ. Engaging in an argument with an atheist about Christianity is pointless. Christianity is just another manifestation of man's desire to explain the existence of God. If we can't agree that we need a highway built, why are we arguing about the architectual style of a particular bridge? Why would the suspension bridge promoter argue with the person who doesn't even want the highway. My attempt has been to bring this back to the fundamental point that there is an inherant belief in god, yet a difference in interpretation. It's pointless to argue interpretation with someone who denies the language.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The absence of belief might be the default state in the sense of a hard drive being wiped clean but not in the case of humanity. Humans have always believed in god/God/gods/spirits, etc. The natural, hence default state, is to believe in something beyond. I doubt it would be too much of a stretch to suggest that 99% of all humans that ever lived had a supernatural belief. 1% cannot be the default state.
This may be the case for humanity as a whole, but it is not true for individuals. We are all born atheists. I think that may be what Tom means by a "default state". We are born without belief. Those who believe have changed their default state for whatever reason. Those who do not believe have not found a reason to.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: It's a bit unclear: are you saying 1)that Zeus was an (inefficient) manifestation of god and therefore, insofar as god exists, Zeus exists or 2)that when people thought they were worshiping Zeus they were actually worshiping God? (in which case you haven't yet said whether or not you think Zeus exists).
I'd imagine that she thinks that Zeus is one group's perception of the divine, and that it's incomplete, as all human attempts to understand the divine must necessarily be. Kate? Is that close?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sean Monahan:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The absence of belief might be the default state in the sense of a hard drive being wiped clean but not in the case of humanity. Humans have always believed in god/God/gods/spirits, etc. The natural, hence default state, is to believe in something beyond. I doubt it would be too much of a stretch to suggest that 99% of all humans that ever lived had a supernatural belief. 1% cannot be the default state.
This may be the case for humanity as a whole, but it is not true for individuals. We are all born atheists. I think that may be what Tom means by a "default state". We are born without belief. Those who believe have changed their default state for whatever reason. Those who do not believe have not found a reason to.
Here's the nature vs nurture argument. An intersting experiment would be to take infants and raise them in an environment without religious training and monitor their perception of the world. Not in an inherently atheist country but in an entirely neutral environment. Would Tarzan be an athiest?
[ October 02, 2009, 01:46 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:I agree the natural state is to seek answers. With all our modern science, why do people persist to believe in a higher power?
We still don't have all the answers. Add to that the social mores, traditions, and the general comfort that comes from having a place to belong, and it's not surprising that religion persists. And that's true even amongst the religions that are wrong (somewhere between 3.6 billion and 5.7 billion people, depending on which religion is right).
quote:Would Tarzan be an athiest?
If I had to venture a guess, judging by the sheer number of offspring who are the same religion as their parents (crazy--you'd think the correct god would be able to elbow his/her way in there somewhere ), I'd go with very yes.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Oh, you're adorable. Here, let me pinch your cheeks and otherwise patronize you, you little cutie.
In another thread you inferred that the problem with Hatrack is that it no longer has the atmosphere of a place where people act as if they were in "Card's living room." Is this really a comment you'd make if you were in OSC's living room, particularly given he is religious?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:This may be the case for humanity as a whole, but it is not true for individuals. We are all born atheists. I think that may be what Tom means by a "default state". We are born without belief.
There's a contradiction in this statement. Atheism IS a belief. Therefore, if we are all born without belief, nobody is born an atheist.
Once we start thinking about the world around us, that is when we start forming beliefs. I'm sure if a bunch of children were left to grow up entirely separately from one another and society, like Tarzan, there'd be plenty of them who would never begin to think about religious questions like "Where did the world come from?", just as plenty would never begin to think about math questions. These people would be neither atheist nor religious; they'd simply have no beliefs or opinions about the question whatsoever. But if you started asking them religious questions, and they started thinking about it, I suspect the majority would end up coming to religious explanations such as gods, souls, etc.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Oh, you're adorable. Here, let me pinch your cheeks and otherwise patronize you, you little cutie.
In another thread you inferred that the problem with Hatrack is that it no longer has the atmosphere of a place where people act as if they were in "Card's living room." Is this really a comment you'd make if you were in OSC's living room, particularly given he is religious?
Not that I would have answered that way...But I would never walk into someone else's living room if nobody knew me and insert myself into an obviously controversial argument and say something to goad people.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:An intersting experiment would be to take infants and raise them in an environment without religious training and monitor their perception of the world.
I'm doing that right now. I'll let you know how it goes.
------------
quote:In another thread you inferred that the problem with Hatrack is that it no longer has the atmosphere of a place where people act as if they were in "Card's living room."
That actually reflects a somewhat profound misunderstanding of what I said.
quote:These people would be neither atheist nor religious...
No, they would be atheists, in that they would hold no belief in a god.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: It's a bit unclear: are you saying 1)that Zeus was an (inefficient) manifestation of god and therefore, insofar as god exists, Zeus exists or 2)that when people thought they were worshiping Zeus they were actually worshiping God? (in which case you haven't yet said whether or not you think Zeus exists).
I'd imagine that she thinks that Zeus is one group's perception of the divine, and that it's incomplete, as all human attempts to understand the divine must necessarily be. Kate? Is that close?
Yup. Zeus being way incomplete.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:That actually reflects a somewhat profound misunderstanding of what I said.
Here's the quote:
quote:To sum up: the "this is Card's living room" metaphor worked very well, as long as people believed it. But it was only a metaphor that could work as long as the atmosphere contributing to it was sustained.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yes. Absolutely. Would you like me to explain what you have misunderstood about that quote?
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:An interesting experiment would be to take infants and raise them in an environment without religious training and monitor their perception of the world.
I'm doing that right now. I'll let you know how it goes.
I can help you a little there Tom, because I was raised this way. While my parents were themselves raised Christian, they did not raise me Christian. I never went to church, never prayed, and never read any part of the bible until just a few years ago so that I could understand what the big fuss was about. The Golden Rule was always dominant in my family, but it didn't come from any one religion.
And how do I perceive the world? I am an atheist. Or very strongly agnostic, depending on your definition. Sure, in the last year or so, I have become very curious about how others see the world. I'm not looking to change my beliefs. I am very comfortable with how I view the world. It is simple curiosity and a desire to understand others. I am taking a class in Tibetan Buddhism. My closest friend studied world religions and we talk often. We both find it highly rewarding.
I haven't killed anyone, hurt anyone, broken any laws (okay, I ran a red light and download music from time to time), think I am a moral person, and have had other people tell me I'm a moral person. My siblings are the same.
Is this surprising? Is it unusual? Is it what you would expect?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's pretty much what I'd expect, yeah. That said, I do wonder about outside cultural influences. In some areas, the social impact of not going to something like Vacation Bible School can be pretty harsh. I remember being in a creative writing class in college and writing a story very heavy on Biblical symbolism, then having to explain it to the one Muslim immigrant in class who had no idea what the allusions meant -- and realizing that this must be the experience of a lot of people reading certain works of Western literature.
The degree to which Christian culture has diffused through American culture might make a fair experiment sort of difficult.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
True. Just this last month I read Matthew and was amazed as to how much of the story and details I already knew. So much of the story and imagery is found nearly everywhere that is isn't surprising that I picked up most of it. It struck me then that America really is a Christian Nation. Sure it has tremendous religious diversity, but I am not familiar with the Koran, or most of the Old Testament, or hardly any of the teachings of Hinduism or Buddhism.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I can offer yet another perspective.
My parents were raised in Hong Kong, absorbing the usual mix of weak Chinese superstitions and nonreligious life. However, one went to a Christian-run religious school which rather backfired while the one that did not dabbled in Christianity once or twice. It didn't take.
Thus after immigration and partial assimilation, there was not much to do but raise me in a non-religious environment at home. I picked and choose the Chinese values that made sense to me, respect for one's ancestors, frugality, and so forth while mixing in the Western values that made sense, such as the scientific method. With no outside push, I studied Christianity, Buddhism, Islam in much the way that others might study The Lord of the Rings.
That said, simple peer pressure persuaded me to declare myself as a Deist in public school. Study at a Chinese-dominated university moved me toward publicly declaring agnosticism that I really picked up in high school. Things like Dawkins books and the increased profile of Christian fundamentalism finally persuaded me to go to full-fledged "strong" atheism.
I can't say I was ever inclined to believe in a specific god. Not only were the specific gods presented unappealing, but giving a free-choice of many gods for me essentially boils down to learning about many but choosing none.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:No, they would be atheists, in that they would hold no belief in a god.
Terms aside, I think a person who has never bothered to think and/or care about whether 1+1=2 is in a very different state of belief than a person who puts 1 apple next to another 1 apple on a table and says "this does NOT equal 2 apples".
So, yes, the default is complete absense of belief. But that isn't the state of mind that KoM is advocating. He doesn't seem to be saying the ideal person is one who never bothers to think about any religious-related question at all, or when asked about "God" simply shrugs his shoulders without taking any position at all. He seems to be arguing that rational people, when posed with such questions, should conclude God likely does not exist. That position is not a default.
quote:Would you like me to explain what you have misunderstood about that quote?
If it won't be too much of a distraction to the real topic... (Not that this thread isn't way off the original topic already!)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think a person who has never bothered to think and/or care about whether 1+1=2 is in a very different state of belief than a person who puts 1 apple next to another 1 apple on a table and says "this does NOT equal 2 apples".
Or, say, someone who looks at a table and thinks, "There are no apples on that table. And there are also no leprechauns on it. Or pizzas. Or gymnasts."
quote:If it won't be too much of a distraction to the real topic...
It'll be quick. Basically, I was saying that as long as people believed the fiction that the Cards thought of this place as their living room, it was possible for them to behave as if it were their living room. This kept things relatively civil, since extremes of behavior were fairly rare and more easily corrected. In the absence of that fiction, such expectations are regularly defeated to the extent that they come to appear foolish.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: The degree to which Christian culture has diffused through American culture might make a fair experiment sort of difficult.
A more specific response to this is that I think the degree to which theistic culture has diffused may make a fair experiment comparing nonreligious and religious difficult. But it should be fair enough to mostly neuter the advantage that Christianity has in relation to others.
I think on some level some people already know this.
quote:A controversial new ethics and religious culture class to be taught in Quebec schools as of next week is getting a nod from the Dalai Lama, who will travel to the province next year to show his enthusiasm for it. ... "The Dalai Lama has always championed teaching ethics to children in the school system and when he learned that Quebec was introducing this curriculum, he was very happy," said Thubten Samdup, a Montrealer with Tibetan origins. ... The new class sparked a heated debate in the province and a few hundred parents -- mostly Catholics and Protestants -- are engaged in a bitter fight with the province's Education Department to be awarded the right to exempt their children from the course. They are worried that if their kids learn about other religions on top of Catholicism or Protestantism, they will become confused by too many choices.
quote:But it should be fair enough to mostly neuter the advantage that Christianity has in relation to others.
Heh. In Canada, maybe. Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
i dont know what newborn children think about god because, as of yet, no newborn child has said anything intelligible to me until a few years after their birth. concluding, based on logic and rationality, that no belief in god is the default belief looks good on paper but is a claim thats hard to verify.
children growing up without any religious education whatsoever may appear to not believe in a higher power when in reality they are indifferent or uninterested simply because there are more pressing issues in the mind of a child. their disinterest may be because developing minds (even developed minds) have difficulty coming to any definitive conclusions, especially on questions concerning ideas as deep and profound as the idea of a higher power. when a child reaches an age where they begin to reason and think abstractly (not just imaginatively. children do great at that) they begin to ask questions like, why am i on earth and what is my purpose? where was i (meaning the mind or spirit as some call it, not physically) before this life? and what happens to me after i die? a great deal of those who believe in a higher power do so in a attempt to answer these questions.
i understand atheists claiming there is not purpose to this life (besides the purposes one establishes for oneself), there was nothing before here and nothing after. but to hold such claims as truth is foolish to me because those claims have never been verified and are, as of yet, unverifiable. the same argument can be held against those who believe as well. that would be an adequate lead into a discussion about faith but that isnt my intention.
also, I dont believe that no belief in a higher power is the rational or more rational stance. is it not rational to see a birth and think that child came from somewhere and lived previous to birth? Or to see a death and believe that the person who just died isnt gone but simply continuing to the next state of life? We see the same thing in the world around us. The world moves in cycles and is in constant metamorphosis (this could be interpreted as a death of sorts I suppose but that interpretation would be based simply on perspective).
relating to the current debate, the rational default belief to me would be agnosticism (the simple definition of the word. lets not complicate such a simple statement). as in, "a supreme power might exist but i cant know either way so instead of making grand assumptions and presumptions, ill not take a stance either way."
on a less related note, i think a great number of people, at some point in their lives, either because of their own mistake or because of the teachings of others, ascribe certain characteristics and attributes to god (or a god) and then later in life "prove", sometimes with the help of others, to themselves and/or others that their god cant and therefore doesn’t exist. in reality, their perception of god was so riddled with misconceptions and fallacies that its failure was inevitable.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:it not rational to see a birth and think that child came from somewhere and lived previous to birth?
*twitch* I am trying not to be patronizing, capax, and you are not helping.
Question: is it "rational" to see the birth of a baby panda and conclude that the panda lived somewhere else prior to its birth (other than, say, the womb)? Why?
[ October 03, 2009, 12:01 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:it not rational to see a birth and think that child came from somewhere and lived previous to birth?
*twitch* I am trying not to be patronizing, capax, and you are not helping.
Question: is it "rational" to see the birth of a baby panda and think conclude that the panda lived somewhere else prior to its birth (other than, say, the womb)? Why?
im not helping? it doesnt suprise me that ive inconvenience you. i wasnt really making an effort to be convenient.
are pandas the same as humans? then yes its rational.
im not a panda, tommy. so ill let them decide for themselves if there is life before world.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"i wasnt really making an effort to be convenient."
But you'd like to convert atheists to your religion, right? How is acting like a pain going to accomplish THAT goal, exactly?
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
If Calvin & Hobbes is wrong, I don't want to be right.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Heh. In Canada, maybe.
I can be an optimist Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:are pandas the same as humans? then yes its rational.
Are you using a different definition for "rational" than the rest of us?
Seriously, can you explain why being "the same as humans" would matter to this scenario? You've asserted that it is perfectly rational, on seeing a human child being born, to believe that the child must have had some prior existence. What about human infants in specific make this belief a rational one? What reasons would you have for holding that belief, based upon the evidence available to you at that birth?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:are pandas the same as humans? then yes its rational.
Are you using a different definition for "rational" than the rest of us?
Seriously, can you explain why being "the same as humans" would matter to this scenario? You've asserted that it is perfectly rational, on seeing a human child being born, to believe that the child must have had some prior existence. What about human infants in specific make this belief a rational one? What reasons would you have for holding that belief, based upon the evidence available to you at that birth?
You haven't answered my private message/email from Sakeriver yet. Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: "i wasnt really making an effort to be convenient."
But you'd like to convert atheists to your religion, right? How is acting like a pain going to accomplish THAT goal, exactly?
if hes finding it hard to not be patronizing thats his problem. if i am a pain, im sure its nothting physical, and therefore avoidable.
im not trying to convert anyone. i dont forsee the world having one belief anytime soon. everyone has a right to believe or not believe so i think the focus should be how do we coexist and live in a tolerant manner among those who belive differently. not how do we ridicule, marginalized and/or otherwise reeducate those that think differently.
as far as my religion, i dont think i ever mentioned one. one can have a set of beliefs concerning diety and not subscribe to any religion.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
It is exceedingly strange to see this
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: is it not rational to see a birth and think that child came from somewhere and lived previous to birth?
and this
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: based on logic and rationality, that no belief in god is the default belief looks good on paper but is a claim thats hard to verify.
in the same post.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Can you explain to me why foolish religious beliefs deserve more respect than, say, foolish beliefs about politics or biology or the economy?
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: one can have a set of beliefs concerning diety and not subscribe to any religion.
Mine is the Hallelujah Diet.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Can you explain to me why foolish religious beliefs deserve more respect than, say, foolish beliefs about politics or biology or the economy?
What benefit is there to disrespecting any given belief, foolish or not?
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Can you explain to me why foolish religious beliefs deserve more respect than, say, foolish beliefs about politics or biology or the economy?
i never said they deserved more respect. or any for that matter. but still i belive they both deserve respect.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
What benefit is there in letting foolish beliefs go unchallenged?
(Meh, I suppose you could challenge most beliefs respectfully. But it's kind of hard for me to "respect" a viewpoint such as the earth being flat. If everyone treats crackpot theories with "respect", then doesn't that just encourage them? Not that laughing will convince real crackpots, but it seems hard to me to respect really, truly deranged opinions.)
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sean Monahan: It is exceedingly strange to see this
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: is it not rational to see a birth and think that child came from somewhere and lived previous to birth?
and this
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: based on logic and rationality, that no belief in god is the default belief looks good on paper but is a claim thats hard to verify.
in the same post.
why so strange? because both examples are hard to verify? i concure. tell me when you find a talking newborn. by then ill be able to "prove" to you life starts before this world. take into consideration im not going to be trying very hard..
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:are pandas the same as humans? then yes its rational.
Are you using a different definition for "rational" than the rest of us?
Seriously, can you explain why being "the same as humans" would matter to this scenario? You've asserted that it is perfectly rational, on seeing a human child being born, to believe that the child must have had some prior existence. What about human infants in specific make this belief a rational one? What reasons would you have for holding that belief, based upon the evidence available to you at that birth?
no. same definition
i dont recall having labeled it perfectly rational. so few things in this world are perfect; i rarely use that word as an adverb or adjective.
my assertion was this: is it not rational, on seeing a human child being born, to believe that the child could have come from some prior existence? before learning that a caterpillar turns into a butterfly, would it be rational to assume that the butterfly entered this world in that form? to further that analogy, if you knew the lifecycle of a bird, wouldnt that effect your assumptions regarding the lifecycle of the butterfly, they being somewhat similar? despite the information you had when making such an assumption, your assumption is wrong because you simply dont understand the process. just because you dont understand the process doesnt mean your observation is correct. you assumed butterflies and birds have the same lifecycle, but they dont. your confusion would be understandable.
when I see a human and a panda, because of what ive see and ive reasoned during my time in this world, i dont assume they have the same lifecycles, spiritually speaking. and although each shares a remarkable amount of similarities, the areas where they are dissimilar are remarkably profound.
yet another analogy:
assuming I know nothing about the hydrologic cycle, would it not be somewhat rational for me to declare that the rain which I see is water which spontaneously appears in the sky, falls and then is absorbed by what it falls on? much of my faulty reasoning can be blamed on the fact that I cant see the water evaporate before it falls as rain.
if rain is death and you only get one a lifetime, your apt to make some poor conclusions prior to dying.
likewise if rain is birth, and you cant see the evaporation, your apt to see the spark of live as spontaneous.
but if in the end were only animals and humans are like pandas and butterflies are like birds, that simplifies a great number. of things
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: it seems hard to me to respect really, truly deranged opinions.
likewise. more so when i discuss politics and ecomonic theory.
but treating someone with respect while exchanging beliefs, reguardless of what the other person belives, is essential if we are all going to coexist on such a small planet with such diversity.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: why so strange?
You don't think it's strange to say that it's not rational to think that a newborn doesn't believe in a god, yet it *is* rational to think that same newborn lived a previous life?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:What benefit is there in letting foolish beliefs go unchallenged?
(Meh, I suppose you could challenge most beliefs respectfully. But it's kind of hard for me to "respect" a viewpoint such as the earth being flat. If everyone treats crackpot theories with "respect", then doesn't that just encourage them? Not that laughing will convince real crackpots, but it seems hard to me to respect really, truly deranged opinions.)
Yes, challenging a belief you don't agree with IS a form of respecting it, as long as you respect the possibility that someone reasonable could believe it.
I don't think respect encourages crackpot theories. Like you said, laughter doesn't often convince people to change their mind. I think more often laughter actually reinforces a person's dedication to a belief. "The world is against me" and all that.
It is hard to respect beliefs that seem deranged to you, but that doesn't mean it's not a good idea. It's a good idea not just for the sake of polite conversation, but more for your own sake - because you can't really be confident you are seeing things clearly if you disrespect the thing you disagree with. Most people I know who hold very extreme political opinions, I've noticed, continue to do so in some part because they are unable to respect the other viewpoint. They can't all be right; someone is deluding themselves with their disrespect.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:is it not rational, on seeing a human child being born, to believe that the child could have come from some prior existence?
No. That's not how rationality works. There is a middle step -- a causative or determinitive step -- that is missing. Compare:
"Is it not rational, on seeing a teapot, to believe that it must have been formed by the tears of gnomes?"
The answer is that, no, it is not rational. There may actually be other reasons behind your belief in teapot-making gnomes, and those reasons might potentially inform the rationality of this belief, but there's nothing inherent in the existence of the teapot that implies crying gnomes.
You are using the word "rational" as if it means the same thing as "common." Certainly it is common for people, upon seeing an infant, to conclude all kinds of silly stuff. That does not mean these are rational conclusions.
It is possible that you, having had some experiences with children, have concluded based on other information that they must have had some previous life. If this is the case, the rational argument for this view is not "I saw the kid being born" but rather "here are the things which, to me, suggest that this child had a previous life."
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Actual Afghanistan analysis, although I'm undecided on its conclusions
quote:Bottom line: China will find a way to benefit no matter what the United States does in Afghanistan. But it probably benefits more if we stay and add troops to the fight. The same goes for Russia. Because of continuing unrest in the Islamic southern tier of the former Soviet Union, Moscow has an interest in America stabilizing Afghanistan (though it would take a certain psychological pleasure from a humiliating American withdrawal).
In nuts-and-bolts terms, if we stay in Afghanistan and eventually succeed, other countries will benefit more than we will. China, India and Russia are all Asian powers, geographically proximate to Afghanistan and better able, therefore, to garner practical advantages from any stability our armed forces would make possible.
Everyone keeps saying that America is not an empire, but our military finds itself in the sort of situation that was mighty familiar to empires like that of ancient Rome and 19th-century Britain: struggling in a far-off corner of the world to exact revenge, to put down the fires of rebellion, and to restore civilized order. Meanwhile, other rising and resurgent powers wait patiently in the wings, free-riding on the public good we offer. This is exactly how an empire declines, by allowing others to take advantage of its own exertions.
Of course, one could make an excellent case that an ignominious withdrawal from Afghanistan is precisely what would lead to our decline, by demoralizing our military, signaling to our friends worldwide that we cannot be counted on and demonstrating that our enemies have greater resolve than we do. That is why we have no choice in Afghanistan but to add troops and continue to fight.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The oldest and most unanswerable questions are: What is true? and What is the meaning of life? I doubt those answers will be found in Hatrack. I've stated repeatedly, there is a component of evidence and a component of faith. I do not intend to go in circles by pointing out that everything in life has a measure of faith. Scientific theories that have been revised or debunked shows the measure of faith in science. Faith that your next paycheck will come before your employer files for bankruptcy and faith that you will survive the commute to work in the morning. I do not know for certain if I will wake up in the morning but I have faith that I will...my confidence in my cardiovascular system is not foolish.
The only things certain in life are death and taxes. Of all things in human history, these two have always been supported by the evidence you seek.
There's such a thing as a difference in degree. Do you really mean to tell me that your belief your next paycheck is of the same level of certainty as your belief in your god? Of course not. One has evidence, the other doesn't. There are uncertainties in many things, but religion is the only one where people take a 99% uncertainty and turn it into a good thing by calling it faith! If your next paycheck required as much faith as your god does, would you not be out there looking for another job? But in matters which, you claim, are of importance eternally, not just for next week's grocery bill, you're happy to go along without evidence. Is this the behaviour of an adult taking responsibility for himself?
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: people take a 99% uncertainty and turn it into a good thing by calling it faith!
its not a 99% uncertainty for many people. they might not be 100% confident either way but they have found a reasonable amount of certainty to justify applying faith to account for the difference. there is a degree of acceptable uncertainty in many things in life.
of course its already been established that you dont accept their "evidences" for believing so you conclude its a 99% uncertainty.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:"Is it not rational, on seeing a teapot, to believe that it must have been formed by the tears of gnomes?"
The answer is that, no, it is not rational.
This reminds me of that post you made where you were boggled by some person's subvariant of argument by obvious design extending to validation of any given Holy Book a/o Creed. "Looking at this beach, it is obvious that there is a creator, and obviously he does not want me to eat pork!"
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
That has nothing to do with whether we'd be better off if the population of the most industrialised nation in the world didn't believe in lies.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)