quote:You know, you make "Monty Python's Life of Brian"; religious nuts everywhere go mad; nobody gets struck by lightning.
You make "The Last Temptation of Christ"; religious nuts everywhere go ballistic; nobody gets struck by lightning.
You code "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas"; moralists everywhere rupture arteries; nobody gets struck by lightning.
You write "The Blind Watchmaker" and drive the creationists to fury; you remain unstruck by lightning.
Your wardrobe malfunctions on live TV; suddenly you're a moral vacuum; nobody gets struck by lightning.
But you make "The Passion of the Christ", which the fundaligionists love - and THREE PEOPLE get struck by lightning.
You persecute atheists - and your house gets ripped apart by a tornado.
It's enough to make you believe a) that there's a god and b) he's on the atheists' side...
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That article managed to lower my opinion of absolutely everyone involved. My sympathy would be with those whose classlessness was at least evidenced second-hand, so there's some room for doubt.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'd like to read a real news story on the trial and events leading up to it. The one linked from the blog entry had so much spin I could use it to dry my salad tonight.
quote:The jury believed the Atheists. Unanimously.
This line demonstrates either a total lack of what a not-guilty verdict means or a deliberate falsification, unless they polled the jury afterwards and simply failed to mention that fact in the article.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Well I've been convinced, now to just convince the wife to come with me to Canada.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I'd like to read a real news story on the trial and events leading up to it. The one linked from the blog entry had so much spin I could use it to dry my salad tonight.
quote:The jury believed the Atheists. Unanimously.
This line demonstrates either a total lack of what a not-guilty verdict means or a deliberate falsification, unless they polled the jury afterwards and simply failed to mention that fact in the article.
I can't find a single article out there that doesn't reference this one as its source.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Christians are all ignorant and intentionally so, therefore they are evil. Atheists always have moral supremecy and can do no wrong.
Yes stories where the religious commit evil and the godless are the champions or right are just so much fun to read everyone feels so much more enlightened after having read them.
Maybe I was just in the wrong mood, but I tire of these types of stories. Yes there are idiots in every organized religion, but I doubt you would be hard pressed to find atheists who are just as moronic.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: I can't find a single article out there that doesn't reference this one as its source.
It's hard. But here. And here. And here.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Oh, BlackBlade, I'm quite sure of it. I'm not KoM, you know.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Here is a long post at democraticunderground.com by Chester Smalkowski, the father. He rambles on, some.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Oh, BlackBlade, I'm quite sure of it. I'm not KoM, you know.
True story Lisa, I probably just need to avoid posting in forums on mon/wed, (I have classes AND work on those days.) Oh I just realized I need to lower my mountain of homework by a few inches. Sometimes I wish Chinese would just cater to my needs.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
quote:Sometimes I wish Chinese would just cater to my needs.
Yeah, but then a few hours later you'd be in the mood for another language.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Dan, that may be the funniest thing you've ever written.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Maybe I was just in the wrong mood, but I tire of these types of stories. Yes there are idiots in every organized religion, but I doubt you would be hard pressed to find atheists who are just as moronic.
And you Christians are all so good and humble, no doubt, that you never rejoice to see the wicked brought down just a notch. Especially when they've been persecuting somebody for their beliefs.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:And you Christians are all so good and humble, no doubt, that you never rejoice to see the wicked brought down just a notch. Especially when they've been persecuting somebody for their beliefs.
Depends on what you mean. I personally don't wish evil on evil people, but I do hope they are stopped and usually sooner is better than later. Saying I'm happier about the death of someone like a terrorist than the death of someone who has lived a good life is about the only true intersection between what you posted and what I believe, but I don't think that's what you had in mind. Afterall, I could be happier about the death of a terrorist simply because that brings their bloody deeds to an end -- I might still mourn their passing as a shame in that they might've learned another way if they had the time & chance.
But then, you aren't talking death, you say "brought down just a notch..."
Okay, so I did get a bit of a thrill when Ken Lay was indicted and tried. I like it when Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell screw up publicly. When Rush gets caught abusing drugs, I chuckle a bit...
Oh wait, you mean people who DON'T abuse religion, but persecute somebody for their beliefs.
I kind of like it when School Boards learn that they can't get away with cramming religion down people's throats too.
Oh wait, you didn't mean that either.
Sorry, I guess you must've been aiming your invective at OTHER religious people. You know, those unidimensional cardboard ones you run into so often. The ones that have been the bane of your existence...right KoM?
Yeah...THOSE people really are deserving of your sarcasm. I'll let them know to come here and read it. If I can find them.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well you know Bob, cardboard cutouts aren't unidimensionsal. They've length, width, and depth man!
Always hatin' on the cardboard cutouts, man.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Man, Kat's right-- lots of classlessness all around.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
I was going to say what Bob said, and I also wanted to add : KOM, even if every christian on the planet behaved the way you describe it wouldn't make it acceptable. If you want to lower yourself, fine, but don't take other's behavior as an excuse.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Expelled for refusing to pray? I'm not buying it.
And the school administrators won't talk about what she was really expelled for, because of the lawsuit. But there were unsubstantiated accusations that she threatened to kill another girl, combined with the actual fact of the father fighting with the principal. I'd believe that she might have been teased or picked on or shunned for not praying - but expelled? She did something else.
On a side note, I can't believe there were that many jurors who didn't know what an atheist was!
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I kind of like it when School Boards learn that they can't get away with cramming religion down people's throats too.
Oh wait, you didn't mean that either.
I must say I do not see where you are getting this in my post. That is precisely what I did mean.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Maybe I was just in the wrong mood, but I tire of these types of stories. Yes there are idiots in every organized religion, but I doubt you would be hard pressed to find atheists who are just as moronic.
And you Christians are all so good and humble, no doubt, that you never rejoice to see the wicked brought down just a notch. Especially when they've been persecuting somebody for their beliefs.
I cannot even remember the last time I was able to without any doubt identify say that right prevailed and evil was vanquished while reading the news. Maybe WW2, but I wasnt alive then, probably the Berlin Wall falling down.
I don't pretend to be perfect, but I do resent being told that because I am religious that therefore my moral frame work is less stable then if I was not, and that religion reflects negatively on my ability to think inteligently.
I have agnostic/atheist friends that I think the world of, and I have very religious family members that I think are idiots sometimes. But I dont use those facts as a basis to believe that all atheists/agnostics are awesome and all religious folks are idiots.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I don't pretend to be perfect, but I do resent being told that because I am religious that therefore my moral frame work is less stable then if I was not, and that religion reflects negatively on my ability to think inteligently.
Has anyone here (beside KOM, who...well, you know) actually said that this is necessarily the case for you specifically?
There's a big difference between talking about trends in populations and saying that everyone within a population has the same characteristics.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: Here is a long post at democraticunderground.com by Chester Smalkowski, the father. He rambles on, some.
His post makes him sound like a paranoid delusional wingbat (I think that's the correct psychological term). This isn't in reference to his atheism; it's in reference to his posting style.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:I don't pretend to be perfect, but I do resent being told that because I am religious that therefore my moral frame work is less stable then if I was not, and that religion reflects negatively on my ability to think inteligently.
Has anyone here (beside KOM, who...well, you know) actually said that this is necessarily the case for you specifically?
There's a big difference between talking about trends in populations and saying that everyone within a population has the same characteristics.
I was not accusing the whole community of so doing, just pointing out that its been done to me in the past and it sometimes seems that KOM makes that statement.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, I apologise, but I actually do feel that adults who believe in Santa Claus are a little less mentally stable than the rest of the population. Sorry, but that's the way I feel. And for the general population, there are indeed some studies showing that religious people are less likely to be intelligent; Wiki has a nice overview.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Well, I apologise, but I actually do feel that adults who believe in Santa Claus are a little less mentally stable than the rest of the population. Sorry, but that's the way I feel. And for the general population, there are indeed some studies showing that religious people are less likely to be intelligent; Wiki has a nice overview.
Ever read Scott Adams' Religion War? He touches on that intelligence thing pretty heavily.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: [QB] Well, I apologise, but I actually do feel that adults who believe in Santa Claus are a little less mentally stable than the rest of the population. Sorry, but that's the way I feel.
Ill bear that in mind when I read your posts. Its easier for me to deal with people who actually believe it, rather then people who keep saying it and claim they are not.
I must admit that I grinned alittle when I read the wiki article and it addressed a study where LDS scientists and people directly countered the results found in other religious/IQ studies Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Getting back to the original topic :
quote:I cannot even remember the last time I was able to without any doubt identify say that right prevailed and evil was vanquished while reading the news. Maybe WW2, but I wasnt alive then, probably the Berlin Wall falling down.
Let us assume for a moment that the facts of the case are as presented in the article. In that case, just how is the court decision not a victory of good over evil?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Getting back to the original topic :
quote:I cannot even remember the last time I was able to without any doubt identify say that right prevailed and evil was vanquished while reading the news. Maybe WW2, but I wasnt alive then, probably the Berlin Wall falling down.
Let us assume for a moment that the facts of the case are as presented in the article. In that case, just how is the court decision not a victory of good over evil?
Oh I fully agree that the school had no right to treat the family as they did; assuming the article speaks only the facts.
If this situation is accurately presented, the atheists were certainly in the right, while the religious were most certainly in the wrong.
I just think religion failing and atheism prevailing makes for more interesting reading to most nowadays, and since I do believe religion when utilized properly makes people better, it just rubs me the wrong way sometimes.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:since I do believe religion when utilized properly makes people better
I guess we're still waiting for it to be utilizied correctly on a wide-scale then.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You have a working what-if machine machine there, Squick?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:since I do believe religion when utilized properly makes people better
I guess we're still waiting for it to be utilizied correctly on a wide-scale then.
Even with a perfect religion I think most people would fail to utilize it properly. Most car accidents are not the cars fault for example.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No, just an axe to grind.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Just how do you expect religion to improve, assuming such a thing were possible, if its flaws are not pointed out? Very few things improve without criticism.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Just how do you expect religion to improve, assuming such a thing were possible, if its flaws are not pointed out? Very few things improve without criticism.
How do people claiming to be Christian, directly going against what their religion dictates, show a flaw with Christianity? Maybe if Christianity controlled its adherants you could complain about the job it was doing.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Just how do you expect religion to improve, assuming such a thing were possible, if its flaws are not pointed out? Very few things improve without criticism.
How do people claiming to be Christian, directly going against what their religion dictates, show a flaw with Christianity? Maybe if Christianity controlled its adherants you could complain about the job it was doing.
Isn't the fact that Christianity CAN'T control their adherants a flaw in itself?
Posted by c.t.t.n. (Member # 9509) on :
Oh my dear, Kat--you have trolled egregiously for Mormonism here. Do you deny that?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Usually people post about religions that control their adherents in negative terms.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by c.t.t.n.: Oh my dear, Kat--you have trolled egregiously for Mormonism here. Do you deny that?
Given Kat's posting activity of late, I assume that this is an alt of someone who predates the registration of this name. If this is true, is there a particular reason you're hiding your usual identity?
If you're just a long-term lurker, never mind.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
BB, The problem with that is that, from a certain point of view, Christianity is defined by what Christians do. There are a mutlitude of examples of really poor behavior on the part of Christians where these people believed that they were following their religion.
For that matter, there are a multitude of other examples (say, compliance in Milgram Experiment-type situations) where, while the behavior is not explicitly commanded by the people's conception of their religion, it grows out of their beliefs nonetheless.
---
If you want to talk about some Platonic ideal Christianity, then that's one thing. But, in general, when I at least am talking about Christianity, I'm talking about something that is actually practiced in the real world.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And yet, with an inability to tell what those people would have done had they not been Christian, you're just blowing smoke.
Posted by c.t.t.n. (Member # 9509) on :
If I get too much religion in my life, then the inevitable result is that people start getting hurt. Either I start disregarding my own safety needs, or those of others, or both. A perfect example is jihad.
Just like if I drink too much water all at once, which is a life-giving substance, I will die, because it will unbalance the body's chemistry.
Perhaps there is a better test for "too much religion in my life". What would it be?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: BB, The problem with that is that, from a certain point of view, Christianity is defined by what Christians do. There are a mutlitude of examples of really poor behavior on the part of Christians where these people believed that they were following their religion.
For that matter, there are a multitude of other examples (say, compliance in Milgram Experiment-type situations) where, while the behavior is not explicitly commanded by the people's conception of their religion, it grows out of their beliefs nonetheless.
---
If you want to talk about some Platonic ideal Christianity, then that's one thing. But, in general, when I at least am talking about Christianity, I'm talking about something that is actually practiced in the real world.
Dagonee: True Story
Squicky: How is Christianity (the docterine not the culture) defined by what people actually do? Perhaps you meantioning the possibility that perhaps God creates certain rules to balance out the decisions a certain culture is more apt to make?
Again assuming the car was made absolutely perfectly, accidents would still occur because of what the driver does with the vehicle. Cars have steering wheels so that you can drive efficiently. But you can also use that same capacity for steering to veer into oncoming traffic.
Still when it all goes down, we have to blame the driver since a person who actually drives properly is very much assisted in his daily activities by the posession of a car.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Err..no I'm not. You see, I can make comparisons across cultures to determine causal relationships between elements of said cultures and the behavior of people in these cultures.
So, for example, I can look at the significantly higher rate of compliance in the Milgram experiment (i.e. virtually shocking someone to death) for certain populations as opposed to others and make inferences based on the thing found in the higher complying populations that are not found in the lower complying ones.
Since Christians are not morally superior (and in many cases are morally inferior) to many other populations, some of which share basically the same environment, they either start out morally lower or either have some elements in their cultural/belief systems or lack elements that others have that reduce the likelihood of certain types of moral behavior or increase the likelihood of immoral behavior.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Since Christians are not morally superior (and in many cases are morally inferior) to many other populations, some of which share basically the same environment, they either start out morally lower or either have some elements in their cultural/belief systems or lack elements that others have that reduce the likelihood of certain types of moral behavior or increase the likelihood of immoral behavior.
This paragraph admits one (and not the only one, despite your making your list exclusive) mechanism by which the results you describe would be found yet not disprove the proposition "a person who converts to Christianity is more likely to morally improve after doing so than he is to morally decay."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Just how do you expect religion to improve, assuming such a thing were possible, if its flaws are not pointed out? Very few things improve without criticism.
How do people claiming to be Christian, directly going against what their religion dictates, show a flaw with Christianity? Maybe if Christianity controlled its adherants you could complain about the job it was doing.
I rephrase. How do you expect Christians, as a group, to improve, if their flaws are never pointed out? Or, if you want to argue that these people are not True Christians (tm), how do you expect that group to increase if the wannabees are never corrected?
Edit : Or to put it back in the terms you originally used, how can you expect people to aply religion correctly if it's never pointed out when they're doing it wrong?
[ July 06, 2006, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote: How is Christianity (the docterine not the culture) defined by what people actually do?
The doctrine is defined by what people believe and teach. The highest commandment in Christianity contains "Love your neighbor as yourself." This is however conspicuously absent as a central tenent in much of the history (and many would argue the current state) of mainstream Christianity.
So, you've got two different definitions of what Christianity is. The ideal one, in which people prize love of neighbor and the actual one, where they don't. Which is Christianity?
To me, it depends on what context you're talking in. When I'm trying to describe the way things are and make predictions about how things are likely going to be in the future, I use the second one.
This doesn't mean that the first, ideal definition doesn't exist (although there are tons of different ideas of what the actual ideal form is), just that I don't find it particularly relevant in describing the real world.
It's possible that there is this perfect form of some your belief out there that will make everything better, but I look at the many ways Christians as a group tend to behave poorly, especially in areas where other cultures do not behave anywhere near as poorly, and I think that it's clearly not here yet. So, again, I talk about what is actually here.
---
Edit: What people do is more related to the effects of doctrine, which is a great deal more nebulous. However, when group A tends to do X and group B tends to do Y, we look for how these groups differ and prefer to explain the differences in behavior by the differences in the constitution of these groups.
If, for example, Christians didn't follow their doctrines and adherents of other belief systems did with highly similar environments did, I'd look for an explanation within the version of Christianity under analysis. Understanding the effects of beliefs and belief structures is a terribly important, though often neglected part of any sort of cultural engineering.
[ July 06, 2006, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by c.t.t.n. (Member # 9509) on :
Common sense and experience tell us that "one man's bread is another man's poison". How does this not apply to religions as well as food?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
c.t.t.n., no, I don't agree with you, and I also suspect that you are a not a newcomer. Why are you hiding?
There's a relevant C.S. Lewis quote around here somewhere that could apply, but I'll rely on Tagore:
quote:And it is the privilege of man to work for fruits beyond his immediate reach, and to adjust his life not in slavish conformity to the examples of some present success or even to his own prudent past, limited in its aspiration, but to an infinite future bearing in its heart the ideals of our higher expectations.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
KOM- I see your point about criticism. <Deleted>
To answer your question though, constructive criticism is essential to growth and improvement. However, very little of the criticism leveled at Christianity appears to be intended as constructive. On the contrary, most of it seems to be thinly veiled insults of hypocrisy.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I imagine that, if one cared to, one could find a way to poke fun at the hypocrisy of some religious types without insulting us.
If not, then I guess one would have to decide which was more important.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Just how do you expect religion to improve, assuming such a thing were possible, if its flaws are not pointed out? Very few things improve without criticism.
How do people claiming to be Christian, directly going against what their religion dictates, show a flaw with Christianity? Maybe if Christianity controlled its adherants you could complain about the job it was doing.
I rephrase. How do you expect Christians, as a group, to improve, if their flaws are never pointed out? Or, if you want to argue that these people are not True Christians (tm), how do you expect that group to increase if the wannabees are never corrected?
Edit : Or to put it back in the terms you originally used, how can you expect people to apply religion correctly if it's never pointed out when they're doing it wrong?
I agree that criticism is a neccesary part of improvement. And yet I have trouble believing that your criticisms are designed to improve the ideas contained in Christianity.
I think it is your goal to present Christianity in such a manner as to disuade people to believe in it.
But perhaps I have got you all wrong. I just do not think a balance exists. The virtues of Christianity are never extolled, while the shortcomings of its adherents are frequently made public for all to see.
A good criticism of Christianity would include the acknowledgment of the existance, if any, of a more proper interpretation of its tenants.
If you read that news story, and concluded that, "Christianity makes people worse." I truely think you have missed the more accurate lesson, that "Those Christians seemed to forgotten some of the more important principles of their religion when they acted."
Christians may not agree on some or even many important concepts. But in all honesty, the imperative charity that should be displayed to ones neighbors just is not one of those principles that is hard to articulate.
Self described Christians are very ineffective at providing adequate Biblical backing for their uncharitable behavior, when such behavior occurs.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I think you'll find that a large number, likely a majority, of Christians are very ineffective at providing adequate Biblical backing for nearly all of their behavior and beliefs. Knowing the Bible doesn't seem to have a high priority among mainstream Christians.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote: Common sense and experience tell us that "one man's bread is another man's poison".
Except in the case of a person with Celiac Disease, I do not see how either common sense or experience support this statement.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I think you'll find that a large number, likely a majority, of Christians are very ineffective at providing adequate Biblical backing for nearly all of their behavior and beliefs. Knowing the Bible doesn't seem to have a high priority among mainstream Christians.
That again reinforces the idea that most people drive without having read the instruction manual properly.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I think you'll find that a large number, likely a majority, of Christians are very ineffective at providing adequate Biblical backing for nearly all of their behavior and beliefs. Knowing the Bible doesn't seem to have a high priority among mainstream Christians.
I think you'll find that a large number of aetheists are very ineffective at providing any backing for their behaviors and beliefs beyond soundbytes, bumper stickers, and MoveOn.org mailings. Indeed, most are unable to act according to their own haphazardly defined morality. --------------
Can you honestly not see how statements that you make and the tone that you make them in are not constructive, but instead critical and degrading???
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Bao, athiests don't have one holy writing which they use to back up all of their statements, as far as I know. So it's really not the same thing.
-pH
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It is easier to have no public ideals because then you can't be called on not living up to them.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Can you honestly not see how statements that you make and the tone that you make them in are not constructive, but instead critical and degrading???
I don't even understand this sentence (most specifically your use of critical and degrading), so I'm guessing I'll have to answer no.
One other thing that I constantly come up against when I'm criticizing cultural groups, especially Christians. Groups are not equivilent. Differently constructed groups behave differently. When someone makes a criticism of a certain group, it is not automatically true that all other groups are the same way.
Take for example one of things I have mentioned many, many times when discussing religion, Gordon Allport and his work on intrinsic and extrinsic religiousity. People who have a certain type of belief structure behave very differently from people, even those of the same religion, who have a different type of belief structure. These differences often manifest themselves in different behavior. In this case, in many areas, those with an intrinsic religious orientation fare better on many things, such as prejudice and authoritarianism (two areas where Christians score significantly higher than non-religious) or reading and knowing the Bible than those with an extrinsic orientation. However, assessment of these styles shows that people demonstrating an intrinsic orientation are much rarer (generally somewhere in the low teens, percetangewise) than those with an extrinsic orientation.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:It is easier to have no public ideals because then you can't be called on not living up to them.
In many measures of Christian's public ideals, say prejudice, violence and agression, and divorce, atheists fare significantly better than mainstream Christians. And, hey, they're significantly less likely to shock you to death because someone in a white lab coat tells them to. Just saying.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You're confusing ideals with practice again.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
No I'm not. You may want to read kat's statement that I quoted and was responding to again. We're talking about "living up to" ideals, which would be practice.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Bao... =(
I don't think most people, christian, atheist or other both to think much about a moral foundation for their beliefs. I think they just believe what they want to believe and to hell with anyone who doesn't fit that.
Back when I was a christian I was constantly agog at how little the other christians actually knew about their professed faith. I wondered how seriously they took it, or if they were just stupid. (actually, I kinda assumed the latter)
Once I lost my faith (and got over my KoM phase) I have been perpetually perplexed by atheists who react to christianity as if the non-existant God will strike them down for being in the same room as a cross... or for hearing a christian pray.
Get over it, atheists. Christians can be whacky but for the most part christianity is a good thing that teaches love when taught properly. It's only a problem when people use god to preach the hate that's in their own heart.
Christians, if you want to convence people that aren't christians of your arguments you better have a firm secular argument. "god said it, I believe it, that settles it" will not convence someone who is an atheist and frequently won't influence people who interpret their faith differently.
Atheists, god doesn't exist. You will not get struck down for saying "Under God" in the pledge.
Christians, learn your own dang book, but use your brain when dealing with people who read it differently or not at all.
It's really not that hard for us to all just get along (/rodneyking)
Pix
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
But I think he's doing it deliberately, which makes discussion impossible.
Instead of talking about ideals, it degenerated quickly into "My group is better than yours."
Not worthwhile.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Well, if you agree kat, then maybe I missunderstood what you meant by "living up to them". Could you explain how that's about holding ideals and not about bearing those ideals out in practice?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:No I'm not. You may want to read kat's statement that I quoted again.
I read Kat's statement and I understood it. She mentioned "public ideals" and being called on it when not living up to them. None of your little tests tested those ideals, but rather people were living up to them.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Err...I'm not getting what your problem with this is.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Well, if you agree kat, then maybe I missunderstood what you meant by "living up to them". Could you explain how that's about holding ideals and not about bearing those ideals out in practice?
You clearly misunderstood what she meant by public ideals, even though you quoted that part: "In many measures of Christian's public ideals, say prejudice, violence and agression, and divorce, atheists fare significantly better than mainstream Christians."
My point was that you aren't measuring public ideals in those tests. You're measuring practice, or, as Kat put it, "living up to" one's ideals.
But hey, whatever lets you make one more sarcastic remark about other people's faith, right?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
To clarify, had you said ""In many measures of Christian's living up to their public ideals, say prejudice, violence and agression, and divorce, atheists fare significantly better than mainstream Christians" you would have been accurately describing the study's findings.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
My point wasn't comparing Christians to aetheists. My point was that the tone and content of Mrsquicky's post was not conducive to a constructive discussion.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
No, I didn't misunderstand and I'd appreciate it if you don't tell me what I know or think. kat made a comment about atheists lack of public ideals - which, while tue as atheists as a group is not in fact true of people who are atheists - and how that made things easier on them, because they're not getting called on not living up to those ideals. Now, as I said, many people who are atheists do actually have publicly stated ideals, even if they don't have them as part of being an atheist. Also, I thought it was relevant to that statement that atheists as a group do a significantly better job of living up to many ideals publically professed by Christians (many of which, again, many atheists publically profess in an other than atheistic context) than Christians do. So, you know, it may be easier not being called on not living up to them (as atheists anyway), but it's also important to note that there would be less reason to call them on many things.
Which in turn ties into my larger points.
As an aside, I'm mystified at how what I said could be taken as a sarcastic remark.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:My point wasn't comparing Christians to aetheists. My point was that the tone and content of Mrsquicky's post was not conducive to a constructive discussion.
Bao, You may notice that not only did my post directly reference something from the one before and BB respond to my post in a continuation of the discussion we were having, but my very next post spoke directly to the "not reading the Bible" bit under the intrinsic versus extrinsic distinction.
I might not be completely objective about this, but I think you might find more value in what I'm saying if you give me a little bit of the benefit of the doubt.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:As an aside, I'm mystified at how what I said could be taken as a sarcastic remark.
Really? "And, hey, they're significantly less likely to shock you to death because someone in a white lab coat tells them to. Just saying." "Just saying" is very sarcastic. Because you're not just saying - you're making a larger point.
quote:Also, I thought it was relevant to that statement that atheists as a group do a significantly better job of living up to many ideals publically professed by Christians (many of which, again, many atheists publically profess in an other than atheistic context) than Christians do.
And again, "In many measures of Christian's public ideals" is about measuring ideals. Not living up to them. When so much of your larger point depends on your insistence on defining groups as they act, not as they would ideally act, expect to be called when you fail to precisely differentiate.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Ahhh...semantics. Tell you what Dag, how about I agree that I'm a bad person and we can call this done?
---
edit: I was talking about measuring living up to public ideals in what I referenced. I don't see how what you're suggesting would make sense. How does one measure public ideals?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I would not call you a bad person. I wish you would refrain from calling me one. Or, at best, implying that I am one by association.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
"Ahhh...semantics." Yes. I know it must be frustrating for you that I actually respond to the words you write.
quote:Tell you what Dag, how about I agree that I'm a bad person and we can call this done?
Well, I don't want you to agree that you're a bad person, so I'm not sure why you'd suggest such a thing.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I never have boots. In fact, I tried to imply the opposite on the last page. I'll quote it:
quote:There's a big difference between talking about trends in populations and saying that everyone within a population has the same characteristics.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I was talking about measuring living up to public ideals in what I referenced. I don't see how what you're suggesting would make sense. How does one measure public ideals?
Since I don't agree that your studies actually measure how one lives up to those ideals - especially as regards prejudice and aggression - I'm probably not capable of doing that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I never have boots. In fact, I tried to imply the opposite on the last page. I'll quote it:
quote:There's a big difference between talking about trends in populations and saying that everyone within a population has the same characteristics.
And there should be a big difference between discovering that a population exhibits a particular trait and that the distinguishing feature of the population leads to that trait.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am not quite arrogant enough to assume that I would qualify as one of your rare exceptions - especially since I know so many Christians who are certainly more worthy candidates.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I agree that criticism is a neccesary part of improvement. And yet I have trouble believing that your criticisms are designed to improve the ideas contained in Christianity.
Indeed you are correct; but I was, for the moment, putting my criticisms - to wit, "Your god does not exist" - aside. Instead I was commenting on the more common (in the media, at least) charge of hypocrisy, which you were objecting to.
quote:I think it is your goal to present Christianity in such a manner as to disuade people to believe in it.
True; but again, I wasn't speaking of my particular criticisms, but what appeared in the article we were discussing.
quote:But perhaps I have got you all wrong. I just do not think a balance exists. The virtues of Christianity are never extolled, while the shortcomings of its adherents are frequently made public for all to see.
Come now. The Christians have had 2000 years at bat; it's not unreasonable for someone else to have a go. The virtues of Christianity are propagandised every Sunday from every pulpit in the land; indeed, for many years the faith was enforced by law. If the oppressor's heel is sufficiently off that people can point out that he has feet of clay, do you expect me to cry?
In any case, not only is there free speech, there is free (well, ad-supported) Internet hosting. You are perfectly at liberty to set up your own blog and post uplifting stories of Christians behaving well. Indeed, I would be very surprised if people haven't done so already; why don't you Google for some? You could even post them on Hatrack.
quote:A good criticism of Christianity would include the acknowledgment of the existance, if any, of a more proper interpretation of its tenants.
In my father's house there are many rooms? I never saw your god as a landlord before, but come to think of it, he does deny housing to the ones he doesn't like, forcing them to live in the slums.
quote:If you read that news story, and concluded that, "Christianity makes people worse." I truly think you have missed the more accurate lesson, that "Those Christians seemed to forgotten some of the more important principles of their religion when they acted."
Then we will just have to disagree, for I think your first conclusion is the accurate one.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think that the vast majority of the results of the study (if the study is accurate, which I am NOT granting) can be attributed to demographics, and that hostility towards the religious is de facto racism.
Most African-Americans identify as devout Christian. That same population is also disproportionately poor, has less access to quality education, and is disproportionately represented in the criminal system at every level.
That's just one example.
There's a reason that the invective against the religious has been called bigotry. It not only shares characteristics but the same targets.
Claiming that the correlation proves that Christianity is an evil is exactly like pointing to social statistics to prove that being raised in a black community is evil. It signals an enormous failure to understand not only correlation/causation, but statistics, demographics, and human nature.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Honestly Squicky, I didn't really object to the intrinsic/extrinsic post. It was the post before it that I was responding to. If you really don't see how it could be considered rude, we probably just have different definitions of rude (note- no sarcastic tone intended).
I just kind of consider an outsider being judgemental the way a certain religious group fails to live up to the lofty ideals of their religion to be a little bit rude, and to do so with an snarky undertone to be just plain rude.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I suppose we do have to disagree KOM.
As for being forced to live in the slums, again you have lumped every Christian together. Within the context of the Christianity I subscribe to, only those who know the land lord exists and refuse to pay rent are unable to live in the mansion. Seems like a fair deal to me.
And having 2000 years at bat (which is a bit on the generous side seeing as how it didnt rise to prominence for a few hundreds years upon its restoration, does not neccesarily warrant 2000 years of lashings.
But you are right that if I want to read more uplifting stories about Christians that there are places that persue that endevour.
I was merely requesting fair mindednesss on those who criticize Christianity, it is a standard that I hold myself to when I criticize atheists, or other religions.
You are welcome to continue with your one sided presentation of Christianity, I just hoped that perhaps you might be capable of seeing a glimmer of the beauty I have found within it.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Pix, good post.
I have had people preach at me. They have not convinced me to follow their faith.
I have had people of dignity and worth who happen to practice their faith, enter my life. They are the way to evangelize.
But I am unsure of your suggestion for aethists to not panic when they walk into a room with a cross or with someone praying.
I have been extremely nervous in such situation, not because God would strike me down for such, but because I was demeaning the ritual/relic by my presence. I was not an believer, and refused to degrade their ritual with the lie of pretending to be one.
To me prayer is a very private thing, the ultimate one on one conversation between a person and God. It brings about a stripping of the person down to a core, if done correctly, and I don't want to see the stripped core of strangers, coworkers, or other.
In public, to me, it becomes not more, but less. The private parts are stripped away in place of a spiritual pep-rally. I can either lie and fake like I am joining in, or stand out and be judged by not.
Sorry I post this and flee, but its time for me to go.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Dan, this may be helpful. "Prayer" covers many different actions. Some are private; some are public; some are both. When prayer is public, people generally just request that you are respectful, not that you join in. In places where a "non-joiner" would be unwelcome, this is usually stated well before-hand.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: As for being forced to live in the slums, again you have lumped every Christian together. Within the context of the Christianity I subscribe to, only those who know the land lord exists and refuse to pay rent are unable to live in the mansion. Seems like a fair deal to me.
In a capitalist market where you have other options, yes. When there is only one non-slum house in town, I feel there is a bit more of an obligation to share what you have.
quote:I was merely requesting fair mindednesss on those who criticize Christianity, it is a standard that I hold myself to when I criticize atheists, or other religions.
In what way do you feel the article was being unfair?
quote:You are welcome to continue with your one sided presentation of Christianity, I just hoped that perhaps you might be capable of seeing a glimmer of the beauty I have found within it.
Lions are beautiful too. I wouldn't want to live next to one, though.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
KoM, what are you talking about? Are you using the "slum" thing as a metaphor for heaven? If you are, the correct analogy would be that people who don't want to live in the mansion aren't forced to live in the mansion.
Posted by c.t.t.n. (Member # 9509) on :
I'm just proposing an idea....
If you can have life-threatening allergies to the following--
1. direct sunlight 2. peanuts or brazil nuts
all of which many people find life-sustaining, then how is it not possible for at least some religions, under some circumstances, to have the same effects?
The Catholic church, in Spain, at the time of the Inquisition.
Wahabbist islam, anytime, anywhere.
Who could have predicted that peanuts would come to kill thousands through deadly allergic reactions, let's say, 100 years ago, or even 50 years ago, among all the foods Americans commonly enjoy?
Who could have predicted that Christianity would have gone from being a religion that suffered bloody, public sacrifice (the martyrs and the early Roman Christians in the Colosseum) to COMMITTING bloody, public sacrifice?
I'm just saying. It's hard to foresee the peanut thing until it's already killed a few.
But the religion thing?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Most African-Americans identify as devout Christian. That same population is also disproportionately poor, has less access to quality education, and is disproportionately represented in the criminal system at every level.
If there is a correlation here, it is that oppressed and hopeless people tend to turn to hopeful fantasy. It has nothing to do with race.
quote:Claiming that the correlation proves that Christianity is an evil is exactly like pointing to social statistics to prove that being raised in a black community is evil. It signals an enormous failure to understand not only correlation/causation, but statistics, demographics, and human nature.
Depends on how you couch the argument. The elements of black society that are demonized are generational, and arise from generations of abuse/neglect on the part of white slave owners. To point to black society and blame the existence of those elements on failings inherent in black people is, as you point out, an example of bigotry. To point out that the failings exist in an effort to find a solution is not.
Likewise, pointing out the failings of religion can have a variety of motivations, some of which are more valid than others. One of those failings is that religion tends to be defensive and unwilling to accept criticism, but more than willing to dish it out.
Dag
quote:Since I don't agree that your studies actually measure how one lives up to those ideals - especially as regards prejudice and aggression - I'm probably not capable of doing that.
I missed the study reference. What study was he claiming?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Milgram and a host of others, Glenn. He didn't specify them, but he referenced them.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:For that matter, there are a multitude of other examples (say, compliance in Milgram Experiment-type situations) where, while the behavior is not explicitly commanded by the people's conception of their religion, it grows out of their beliefs nonetheless.
quote:These differences often manifest themselves in different behavior. In this case, in many areas, those with an intrinsic religious orientation fare better on many things, such as prejudice and authoritarianism (two areas where Christians score significantly higher than non-religious) or reading and knowing the Bible than those with an extrinsic orientation. However, assessment of these styles shows that people demonstrating an intrinsic orientation are much rarer (generally somewhere in the low teens, percetangewise) than those with an extrinsic orientation.
Posted by c.t.t.n. (Member # 9509) on :
I don't want to saddle my descendants or anyone else's with the results of poorly-thought-out religious beliefs. I.E., the burka in Wahabbist Islam.
At this point, if I had a revelation from God, I'd do my best to forget it. It's not worth starting another Islam over.
nah, I'm kidding. Sorta.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I wasn't aware that Milgram addressed the religious predisposition of the participants.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
The second quote references the Allport studies linked to in Squick's post near the top of this page.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You will not get struck down for saying "Under God" in the pledge.
I don't think that's what motivates atheists and agnostics to dislike proselytization in government. Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Yeah, there's something weird about that whole argument, especially if it's coming from a godless person. It's not unlike the theist arguments that claim that atheists beleive in God, but we deny his existence.
Being forced to recite a pledge to a nation under god is not unlike being forced to recant a lie when you know you're telling the truth. Kind of like Professor Umbridge and Harry Potter, only without the bloody quill.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Ok, Dana. Thanks for the link, that was a good summary. It also explains why Dag doesn't find the studies convincing.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
KOM: The article as far as it was providing only the facts cannot be called fair or unfair. The facts are there to be interpreted as the reader chooses.
There are plenty of columns, posts, movies, stories, even news articles where people only feel it is neccesary to present the facts in such as way as to lead somebody to the conclusion that Christians are bad people.
With all the screaming people do that jihadists are not real Muslims in publications, I do not see the same courtesy extended to Christians.
I am making these statements as more of a general feeling to me (call me right or wrong, its your choice) not that "The specific article says HERE...."
Again my Christianity does not subscribe to the "One non slum house." model. kmbboots summed it up pretty well. If you want to live in another home that isnt quite as nice as the mansion, that option exists. If you want to live in the gutter that option also exists.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, you should note that I do actually think that the jihadists are real Moslems, on the principle that religion is as religion does - same reason I think the people referred to in the article are real Christians. So I do not think you can accuse me of this kind of unfairness.
For the slum housing, fair enough.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Well, you should note that I do actually think that the jihadists are real Moslems, on the principle that religion is as religion does - same reason I think the people referred to in the article are real Christians. So I do not think you can accuse me of this kind of unfairness.
For the slum housing, fair enough.
Fair enough.
Do you think the acts commited by jihadists or say the Christians in the news article would completely disappear if religion completely ceased to exist? Or do you think they would decrease in occurance?
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)