posted
Who said we assume god is good? I've commented to other philosophy people before that even if the Christian God does exist, I wouldn't worship him, because it seems to me that he is evil.
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel much the same. I'm interested by the assertion, I forget now where I may have picked it up, that if the devil ever succeeded in taking God's place, he would be forced to act in God's stead, and do all that God would have done. This is an interesting idea, at least for this athiest, because I already believe that the role of a God is created and filled in the imagination- so a God by any name is the same thing, or the lack of the same thing.
It's like that very consistent and absurd Christian insistence on using the bible as a moral or philosophical guide- when the bible has such a very, very poor track record in that department. It reminds me why advertising accounts largely for box office movie sales... the whole part about art and deep thinking and creativity is less important to the masses.
But then, I am lately thinking that appealing to the masses as an indication of what really "works" or what is feisable in our own lives is also good money chasing bad. Think about it, don't invest your heart in it, and you will be rewarded with useful insight. This Christian society some of us claim to live in is also engaged in a number of horrifically grotesque activities at home and abroad. That and we have millenia long history of bloody conflict presided over by Christians, or deists of all denominations. So I think that tells you something you should know- I don't remember a war of atheism from my history classes, unless you include communism, which is just about on par with religion in my book.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Agreed, if God were evil, how could I continue to worship him?
It is actually pretty easy to discount the entire line of reasoning, and although I did not read the article, I'm sure it did not adequately address this: Supposing God exists, and God is as he is commonly defined (the Creator of Existence), then all the beauty of this world, be it art and music, or love and charity, and self-sacrifice, would be his creation. Therefore, even if the argument could be made that all the horrors of the world were the result of God, one could not honestly state that God was evil, because goodness could not be the product of something that was evil.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
IMO were God evil and all powerful, then there is no way we could predict much less influence his behavior, and so it behooves us to just try to not piss him off so that at least mortality goes by as peacefully as possible.
I think few if anyone assumes God is good. I think people consider the universe we are in and conclude that God is more likely good than evil. I for one think that as my knowledge of things increases my capacity and desire to be good also increases. Hence God knowing everything rightfully concludes that to be good is the best course.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My rational (and I know it's not entirely logically sound), and I will say as well that I haven't read the article but am just posting in the moment, is that God is good because he defines good. If God is more powerful than me and more wise than me (prerequisites for my belief in Him), than it makes sense that the decisions he makes will be and are better than mine. Basically, God is all powerful and all knowing, I am not. So it seems pretty ridiculous for me to look at what happens and say "This is right/good, that is wrong/evil". My perspective is incredibly limited.
So when I say that He is good because He defines good, I mean that just because I see something which according to me is bad does not mean that I immediately assign blame to God, saying "You obviously messed up big guy". I think that if God means for something to be good, I'm not going to contradict Him.
I know, it's a simplistic and logically (and likely theologically) flawed way of looking at things, and I'm really in the middle of a lot of internal theological debates right now, so this is liable to change, but as of right now this is what makes sense to me. Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: In so far as the world works, it follows that its creator must be good at creating worlds
This part reminded me of the very beginning of "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy", where it says something along the lines of "everyone regarded God creating the world as a big mistake, as everyone was miserable". I probably butchered that part, but it's what it reminded me of.
The article also made me think of this guy named John Piper (who has at least one thread on here devoted to one of ... less intelligent moments) who basically says that the purpose of God is not to make humanity happy, but rather to bring glory to Himself. It's more complicated than that, but I'd just thought I'd throw it out there.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing I find mystifying is how educated, intelligent people (of which we have a few) can believe that "my religion is the only way". Now how's that? If that were true, why would the Muslim versus Christian conflicts have gone the way they did? Why would they continue to go the way they go? Sometimes the Muslims have won, sometimes the Christians. Every single sect of Christianity/Islam/you name it, is heir to the same physical laws and laws of probability. If you tend to fight in wars, or do other physically dangerous things, you tend to be more likely to die that way. If you have lots of unprotected sex, you tend to be at risk for STDs. If you eat poor-quality food, you're likely to have health problems from that. All in all, it looks to me like agnostics armed with a good understanding of these types of facts would probably be in a lot better shape, on average, than an extremely devout member of any religion.
Which is why I don't bother belonging to a church. I'm not against the more open-minded churches, but I'd have to believe that my life would somehow be magically better because I joined such a church. I think the historical evidence shows that awareness of the facts of the universe (there are plenty besides what I've listed, for sure) is probably a lot more useful than being a fundamentalist of any type. IOW...why should I be a fanatic about anything that I don't have proof of? I admit that I've not always been the best proponent of non-fanaticism.
I'm not saying that subjective knowledge isn't something you should listen to. We wouldn't have or enjoy great art/music/literature without subjective awareness. However, I think that it's important to save your fanaticism for moments when it's really warranted. Resh's silly ranting about YEC is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. He's smart, he's been to college, he (and the other Young Earthers here) should know better.
I'm not saying fundamentalist types don't have some temporary advantages. They seem to have lower divorce rates, probably lower rates of drug/alcohol addiction, and lower rates of STDs. However, fundamentalism invites huge wars that kill millions. Sheeple will point and shoot if you tell them to.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know that I don't speak for everyone, but I think that most who believe in a benevolent God do so because a) they were taught to believe in such a god and b) because they have had some personal experience in their life that reinforces those teachings.
It's not based on logic: if there is a god, he must be good. It's based on the effects of faith, which are difficult to describe to the unbeliever, but very real to the believer.
quote: It's like that very consistent and absurd Christian insistence on using the bible as a moral or philosophical guide- when the bible has such a very, very poor track record in that department.
The Bible can be very confusing and sends a lot of mixed messages -- but I think it has actually been a very effective moral guide for many who have made a deep study of it. Are the Ten Commanddments really so awful? The Golden Rule? Just because anyone can twist an ideal or teaching and use it for evil purposes does not mean that the ideal is wrong. Those who sincerely try to apply the overall messages of the Bible have made the world a better place. I totally disagree that it has a poor track record just because some fanatics and hypocrites have twisted it to their own purposes.
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I yet have to read a "God is an evil bully, and here's why:" essay that contains anything even slightly resembling the God I love and worship.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
1. God is a jerk. 2. He doesn't exist. 3. He doesn't give a shite, and probably never will. Fix your own problems.
Seriously, what kind of a God would let three groups of people kill in his name for thousands of years, in the same place?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I totally disagree that it has a poor track record..."
It's track record is, IMO, not any better than that of the Quran. If you think it is better, I would suggest you check out how much more enlightened and non-fundamentalist Muslims were (than Christians) in the Middle Ages. Islam might be the more-fundy religion of the two NOW, but that hasn't always been true. Overpopulation has a lot to do with this, IMHO.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"As I recall, Christians didn't have access to the Bible during the Middle Ages."
Like I said before, sometimes the Christians win, sometimes the Muslims win. Muslims used to be the more literate, now Christians are. There is no clear winner, there never has been, and common sense will tell you there probably never will be.
God favors neither, if he exists.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My point was, you can't blame the unenlightened behavior of Christians in the Middle Ages on their use of the Bible as a moral compass (the original point I was addressing), because they were denied access to it. I have no problem saying that the so-called Christian leaders at the time were corrupt and not following the Bible at all. I also think that the Muslims bent on violence are similarly corrupting the teachings of their Koran, which, just as the Bible, contains an overall message of peace and good living.
Anyway, their are many more religions than Muslim and Christian, and yes, I do happen to believe that all are the children of the God I happen to worship, and that he loves all of us and deplores it when we hate each other.
But I admit that he stories in the Old Testament of a God who commanded his children to go wipe out whole peoples are confusing at best, and I understand why nonbelievers would be put off and horrified by that, and why even believers can be turned from their belief because of it. I think that the Crusaders were not driven by religious fervor at all, but by lust for riches and power and used those stories as an excuse. And yes, I think we're seeing some of it in our own time, too.
However, can we really discount the Bible's effectiveness as a moral guide to the millions of people who have lived quietly, trying to be good to their families and neighbors because that is what the Bible teaches that God wants?
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"However, can we really discount the Bible's effectiveness as a moral guide to the millions of people who have lived quietly, trying to be good to their families and neighbors because that is what the Bible teaches that God wants?"
Replace "Bible" with "Koran" or "Tao Te Ching" or "Talmud" or "Upanishads" or "Diamond Sutra". It is much the same, is it not?
That's not to say that I totally agree with all the teachings in those religions. I think there's a time and place for this, that, and the other.
I still think overpopulation/fundamentalism are the real issues. Ignorance will screw you big-time, I think we all agree. Overpopulation is a cause and an effect of ignorance. It's a cycle. Ignorance is where you stop it, through education. Education must, of needs, include awareness of other religions and their histories.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Replace "Bible" with "Koran" or "Tao Te Ching" or "Talmud" or "Upanishads" or "Diamond Sutra". It is much the same, is it not?
For Koran or Talmud, yes, I'd agree. Not familiar enough with the others to weigh in, but if the moral of their stories/teaching is also basically "do good, be kind, be true to something higher than yourself" then yes, I'd also agree.
However, do you really think that negates my point? All I was saying is that the Bible shouldn't be roundly villified as a poor moral guide because it has been twisted to justify the selfish goals of some. I'd say that the same can be said of any moral or philosophical work. There are going to be just as many, if not more, people who fail to live up to the ideals they profess as those who succeed.
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Not familiar enough with the others to weigh in..."
This, in a general sense, is the problem. Ignorance is the problem. The only case in which I'd say otherwise would be with the Amish. They'll never be sending their 3rd, 4th, and 5th sons off to war, to continue the cycle of ignorance/overpopulation/war/devastation. They are still heir to the problems of poor diet, but they do manage to avoid a high divorce rate, alcholism, excessive drug use, and STDs.
This is why I say, aware agnostics are better off than ignorant believers, pretty much no matter what. I am an agnostic, and I have a much better idea of what the Upanishads, the Diamond Sutra, the Tao Te Ching, and other such books say than the average believer. I am far less likely to have 8 kids and send the younger sons off to war, because I know history and religion.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems to me that simply dismissing the narratives of the Old Testament as proof that God either 1)is evil or 2)must not exist because no good God would do such things problematic, for three reasons.
1)As has been pointed out, such stories are _vastly_ outweighed in the Old Testament by commandments to live virtuously, to take care of the poor, etc. The Golden Rule actually appears in Deuteronomy.
2)It partakes of the fundamentalist assumption that the Old Testament is first, a historically accurate description of the events its describes, second, that it purports to be this, and third, that every word and narrative in the Bible is of equal spiritual and religious application.
Of course, Christianity from the beginning has denied the last of these; it has also, in many of its manifestations, denied the first two. You will find many - perhaps most - Christians in the world today subscribe to the notion that the narratives of divinely ordered violence in the Old Testament either 1)do not accurately describe the participation of God in them or 2)reflect a particular stage in the spiritual development of humanity; a development that we trace through the Old Testament, from the tribal God of Exodus through the universal God of Isaiah, a trend that culminated in Christ, the perfect revelation of God.
3)You may not like this or find it convincing. Fair. Say, on the other hand, that the stories of the conquest of Israel are accurate. Why is this so repulsive? This is not to deny that there appears to be some contradiction between the Old and New Testament, but this sort of complaint always strikes me as somewhat historically contingent. We're Westerners in the 21st century; we've been conditioned to believe many things. Among these things are the idea that religion should be therapeutic - that it should uphold our secular values of personal, individual expression, rather than demanding that we conform to group standards; that its first priority should be making us feel good about ourselves and personally worthwhile; and that it should not tell us what is right or wrong, but rather should affirm our individual consciences.
Put simply, this emasculates God. It means that we will only accept a God who tells us what we already believe, who affirms rather than prophesies. It's also the impulse behind the 'spiritual-but-not-religious' movement; what sociologist Robert Bellah describes as 'Sheliaism,' from his interview with a woman named Sheila who claimed to build her own faith, taking what she liked from a variety of traditions.
Oddly enough, this is not the God of the Torah, or the New Testament, or the Koran, or the Book of Mormon, or the Bhagavad Gita. It's something new in religion.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"It's also the impulse behind the 'spiritual-but-not-religious' movement; what sociologist Robert Bellah describes as 'Sheliaism,' from his interview with a woman named Sheila who claimed to build her own faith, taking what she liked from a variety of traditions.
Oddly enough, this is not the God of the Torah, or the New Testament, or the Koran, or the Book of Mormon, or the Bhagavad Gita. It's something new in religion."
I bet you celebrate Easter, Matt. I bet you celebrate Christmas, too, you big hypocrite.
Seriously, syncretism is almost as old as religion itself.
Dude, that was almost too easy.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unless of course you turn the celebration into something religious. Just because at one historical point pagan holidays were on the same day that the Christians used their holidays- does not mean that they are now Pagan. Easter is based off the timing of the passover and therefore the crucifixion and to the Sunday afterwards the Resurrection.
It is now a religious holiday.
Posts: 980 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My point was that it's a little funny that Young Earth Creationist Biblical Literalists celebrate Christmas and Easter. This is appropriate to Luna's situation because my parents attend such a church, and they take her from time to time. Luna has actually been taught to believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans, until I disabused her of such a ridiculous idea.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Getting back to the original question, a lot of the theists seem to be saying "My god must be good because if it weren't, I wouldn't worship it, which I do, so therefore...". Which is circular.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
steven, I'm not sure why you seem to think I'm a young earth creationist; my only explanation is that it appears you believe that all Christians are. This is a simplistic stereotype that I'd encourage you to drop if you want to have a worthwhile conversation with intelligent people.
Anyhow, your point about syncretism is tangential to my larger argument, which you did not address. I'll assume you have nothing to say about it.
But, if you'd like, let's talk about syncretism. Unfortunately, your examples of Christian use of 'pagan' holidays don't actually prove your point, which, though it's somewhat hard to grasp, seems to be that Christianity is itself a thin veneer on 'pagan' faith traditions. You haven't proven this; indeed, you'd have to demonstrate that early Christians did not take previous holidays and invest them with their own previously existing meanings, in the same ways that Navajo tribes took the crucifix and transformed it into a symbol of rain.
In short, you seem to be incorrectly understanding 'syncretism' - which is the melding of two cultural traditions, the adaptation of symbol and metaphor from one culture - with something else. And further, you seem to be misreading me and Bellah.
Historically, religious syncretism is the blending of two previously existing faith systems through cultural contact and often evangelism. What's going on in America today is related to the rise of a consumer culture, in which the faith traditions are through the lens of the marketplace, and in which the truth claims of each are rejected in favor of individualized concerns about personal fulfillment. This is syncretism, yes, but it's happening on a different scale, and for different reasons, than your counterexamples.
There are historical examples of this particular type - the development of folk magic is one - but the particular confluence of historical processes Bellah observes is, I think, unique.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Getting back to the original question, a lot of the theists seem to be saying "My god must be good because if it weren't, I wouldn't worship it, which I do, so therefore...". Which is circular.
You're leaving out a step, KoM. What I was saying (can't speak for anyone else) is that I have had personal experiences which, for me, reinforce what I've been taught about God being good. Nope, can't prove that--if you haven't had the same experiences then I don't blame you at all for not believing; I probably wouldn't either. Nope, it's not purely logical.
And steven, I don't happen to agree that not knowing as many sacred texts of other religions as you do makes me ignorant. You are free to disagree. ;-)
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Getting back to the original question, a lot of the theists seem to be saying "My god must be good because if it weren't, I wouldn't worship it, which I do, so therefore...". Which is circular.
You're leaving out a step, KoM. What I was saying (can't speak for anyone else) is that I have had personal experiences which, for me, reinforce what I've been taught about God being good. Nope, can't prove that--if you haven't had the same experiences then I don't blame you at all for not believing; I probably wouldn't either.
And yet, if you believe as most Christians do, your god will nonetheless hold that lack of belief against me. This is good? A further point: If you had not been taught that your god is good, you would not have taken your experiences as confirming that. Evidence that depends on your prior is not evidence; it's usually circular reasoning.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: "As I recall, Christians didn't have access to the Bible during the Middle Ages."
Like I said before, sometimes the Christians win, sometimes the Muslims win. Muslims used to be the more literate, now Christians are. There is no clear winner, there never has been, and common sense will tell you there probably never will be.
God favors neither, if he exists.
Let's figure out what we all mean by "win." If "win" is who conquers the other, it looks like the Jews were continuously the winners throughout the Old Testament for a couple thousand years, but I don't think that's what anyone here means.
If "win" is who has the most adherents, you could argue Islam (the fastest growing religion in the world) or Christianity (the religion with the most people who profess their faith in it). Islam is mostly growing the fastest because they are making a lot of babies; whereas Christianity has been sustained significantly in part because of missionary work from the time of the Apostle Paul to Dr. Livingstone. (Yes, Constantine and the British Empire helped, but those were political; it took religious fervor to actually spread Christianity through these.)
If "win" is which religion is perceived by Western civilization to have the greatest adherence to universal secular, but not necessarily atheistic, values, the winner is probably Buddhism.
If "win" is which religion holds the best simple code for moral being, I'd argue Christianity, which is guided more by the Gospels and the letters of the early church than the code of the Old Testament (which is explained by itself; Paul and Jesus and most of the apostles were all advocates for change in religious interpretation, saying the time of sacrifice is done and the battle to be waged in God's name is only the Great Commission. The New Testament announces a change from the old traditions that are cited by atheists attempting to discredit the Bible.
If "win" is literacy, there are no clear winners. But I'm sure there are people in the world who are capable of being good people and good Christians without having read a word in their life. But since the Bible and other religious texts started being produced with the intent of allowing anyone who wants to be able to possess a copy of Scripture for themselves, literacy hasn't been at all suppresses by modern religions, especially Christianity.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
"steven, I'm not sure why you seem to think I'm a young earth creationist; my only explanation is that it appears you believe that all Christians are. This is a simplistic stereotype that I'd encourage you to drop if you want to have a worthwhile conversation with intelligent people."
There are plenty of Young Earthers here. Many of them are very intelligent, with advanced degrees. You...just...called...them...stupid. It's not a simplistic sterotype. It's a fact. Hatrack's rife with them. Rife, I tell you! Rife!
Seriously, here's a list:
Ron Lambert Lisa Farmgirl Reshpeckobiggle
There's more, I'm sure. All 4 are highly intelligent. All have at least bachelor's degrees. None, with the possible exception of Resh, are idiots when it comes to science, or anything close to being idiots.
I was raised with this belief system, but I had to square it with geological evidence. In the fight between dinosaur bones, radiocarbon dating, other forms of dating, and sedimentation versus YEC...the YEC folks lost out, for me.
See, for you, it's not a choice between a tremendously ignorant childhood religion and agnosticism/atheism. However, I think you can see that it is for me. Why? Because you believe a great many of the things that I was raised to believe, except for the YEC stuff. You, in my mind, are guilty by association. I'm not saying you're wrong about the things you agree with them on...but I gotta see evidence. I ain't taking squat on faith any more. I got burned already. Can you see why I feel that way? I think you can.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:There are plenty of Young Earthers here. Many of them are very intelligent, with advanced degrees. You...just...called...them...stupid. It's not a simplistic sterotype.
I said that assuming all Christians are young earth creationists is a simplistic stereotype. This has nothing to do with the intelligence levels of the people involved. It's a fallacy of argument and the arguer, not a description of the persons under consideration. Saying that, say, all martial artists are Asian or all Russians communists is the same sort of fallacy. Frankly, I find it kind of hard to misread.
Indeed, you're the one arguing that they have an "ignorant belief system." I bet I've read more fundamentalist theology than you have, and there's no question it's often internally consistent and demonstrates a great deal of careful thinking - indeed, rationality is a primary fundamentalist virtue. Lewis Chafer and J. Gresham Machen are no intellectual slouches.
The question is not about stupidity or intelligence; rather, it's about from what premises one proceeds.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
There's more, I'm sure. All 4 are highly intelligent.
Sigh... It's really not very nice to make statements that one cannot disagree with without skirting the forum rules. Nonetheless, I disagree. All are very skilled at avoiding direct questions, ignoring evidence, and cherry-picking authorities to argue from. This is not the same as intelligence.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
"The question is not about stupidity or intelligence; rather, it's about from what premises one proceeds."
Did you catch what I said already? Let me repost it, maybe it got lost in the shuffle:
quote from me--"I was raised with this belief system, but I had to square it with geological evidence. In the fight between dinosaur bones, radiocarbon dating, other forms of dating, and sedimentation versus YEC...the YEC folks lost out, for me.
See, for you, it's not a choice between a tremendously ignorant childhood religion and agnosticism/atheism. However, I think you can see that it is for me. Why? Because you believe a great many of the things that I was raised to believe, except for the YEC stuff. You, in my mind, are guilty by association. I'm not saying you're wrong about the things you agree with them on...but I gotta see evidence. I ain't taking squat on faith any more. I got burned already. Can you see why I feel that way? I think you can."
Would you like to speak to that? I don't think you can. I think you haven't because you can't.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speak to what? That you're not taking anything on faith?
Fair enough. Your rationality is one based on empirical evidence. You have good company. I don't think that means you're stupid; however, neither do I believe that yours is the only way of knowing.
I'm honestly not sure what you're asking; indeed, this entire conversation seems characterized by non sequiturs.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
There's more, I'm sure. All 4 are highly intelligent.
Sigh... It's really not very nice to make statements that one cannot disagree with without skirting the forum rules. Nonetheless, I disagree. All are very skilled at avoiding direct questions, ignoring evidence, and cherry-picking authorities to argue from. This is not the same as intelligence.
It's a type of intelligence...
I don't discount YEC outright, regardless of evidence because to do so would be to abandon the other firmly established belief already held (like some here do), and I don't think all of existence developed as a product of purely natural, materialistic forces. I believe some alternative theories to creation are valid even if the scientific establishment does not. If you think this means I am a YEC, then you have a pretty loose interpretation of the label.
[edit] "You" being steven, who first assigned me the label, and also anyone else who considers what I and other like-minded persons believe to be Young Earth Creationism.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's true. He implied that being a Young Earth Creationist is incompatible with being intelligent.
Actually, he didn't. MattB said that treating all Christians (set A) as young-earth creationists (set B) isn't conducive to having a worthwhile conversation with intelligent people (set C). In essence, he cautioned you against conflating sets A & B, nothing more.
I normally wouldn't bother with this type of thing, but I find this portion of the discussion uncomfortable.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Replace "Bible" with "Koran" or "Tao Te Ching" or "Talmud" or "Upanishads" or "Diamond Sutra". It is much the same, is it not?
For Koran or Talmud, yes, I'd agree. Not familiar enough with the others to weigh in, but if the moral of their stories/teaching is also basically "do good, be kind, be true to something higher than yourself" then yes, I'd also agree.
However, do you really think that negates my point? All I was saying is that the Bible shouldn't be roundly villified as a poor moral guide because it has been twisted to justify the selfish goals of some. I'd say that the same can be said of any moral or philosophical work. There are going to be just as many, if not more, people who fail to live up to the ideals they profess as those who succeed.
Which is perfectly evidence, for me, that organized religion doesn't work. Here you are admitting that the track record is probably below 50%. And when you consider that the influence that these failing christians have wrought on the world, if you count them up, comes to millions upon millions of deaths, and centuries of human history practically forgotten in the dark ages, a time when our people forgot how to make concrete, I have a hard time seeing why there are so many loyal christians still around. The whole thing really hasn't worked out that well at all- in fact we're still living in day to day fear of the consequences of the crusades, and of the world wars, which allowed religious belief systems to become the basis for genocide.
The nice thing about being an atheist is that you're on your own. I don't have to worry that someone is going to connect my beliefs with some god-awful chapter of history and say: "how dare you!" Partly because that chapter in history is :surprise: not there. But also because even if it were, it wouldn't be my page.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:* Starts countdown to allegation that Hitler was an atheist *
Ten... nine...
Is there a name for that technique: bringing up stupid statements that have not been brought up in the argument and that are sometimes made by those who disagree one's side in order to tarnish the other side by association?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm actually kind of curious, what *is* that technique called? It has to have a name, everything has a name.
Posts: 193 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
