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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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???
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
It is easier to have no public ideals because then you can't be called on not living up to them.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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)
posted
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?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 48 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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
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.
posted
The second quote references the Allport studies linked to in Squick's post near the top of this page.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, Dana. Thanks for the link, that was a good summary. It also explains why Dag doesn't find the studies convincing.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
